The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner must reimburse Respondent for overpayments totaling $2,851.19 which Petitioner received from the Florida Medicaid Program during the period May 24, 1999 through January 26, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, the Agency for Health Care Administration (hereinafter referred to as the "Agency"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Agency is responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program. See Chapter 409, Florida Statutes. Among other responsibilities, the Agency is authorized "to recover overpayments . . . as appropriate . . . ." Section 409.913, Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Meji, Inc., d/b/a 7th Avenue Pharmacy (hereinafter referred to as "Meji"), was, at all times pertinent to this case, a duly authorized Medicaid provider, having entered into a Medicaid Provider Agreement with the Agency. Meji was assigned Medicaid Provider Number 0165076-00. Meji is also a licensed pharmacy in Florida, having been issued license number PH0016158. As a Medicaid provider, Meji is authorized to dispense drugs and supplies to Medicaid recipients, for which Meji is entitled to reimbursement from the Medicaid Program. In return, Meji has agreed to comply with all governing statutes, rules, and policies, including policies set forth in the Florida Medicaid Prescribed Drug Services Coverage Limitations and Reimbursement Handbook, incorporated by reference into Rule 59G- 4.250(2), Florida Administrative Code. On March 20, 2001, an audit was performed of payments from the Medicaid Program to Meji. On January 24, 2002, a Provisional Agency Audit Report was issued finding that Meji had received $40,062.52 in overpayments from the Medicaid Program and offering Meji an opportunity to respond to the Agency's provisional determination. When Meji failed to respond to the Provisional Agency Audit Report, the Agency issued a Final Agency Audit Report informing Meji that the Agency intended to seek reimbursement of the $40,062.52 in overpayments Meji had received for services provided during the period May 24, 1999 through January 26, 2001. The Final Agency Audit Report was issued March 8, 2002. Meji requested a hearing to contest the Agency's determination and provided documentation not previously provided to the Agency. On March 19, 2003, after reviewing the newly provided documentation, the Agency issued an Amended Final Agency Audit Report in which the Agency informed Meji that it had received overpayments of $2,851.19. In response to this notice, Meji requested a formal administrative hearing by letter dated March 20, 2003. The amount of the overpayments which the Agency seeks to recoup in this proceeding was determined by taking a statistically valid random sample of Meji's submitted Medicaid claims submitted during the audit period. The amount of the overpayments found in the random sample was then extended to the total of Meji's claims for the audit period based upon generally accepted statistical formulas and methods. By failing to respond to the Agency's Request for Admissions, Meji is deemed to have admitted the validity of the statistical formula utilized by the Agency. The Amended Final Agency Audit Report, along with the supporting work papers, were offered and accepted in evidence in this case. The Amended Final Agency Audit Report, in an attached Pharmacy Audit-Final Report, sets out the manner in which the overpayments were calculated. Those calculations are further described in proposed finding of fact P.(1) through (6) of the Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order and Incorporated Closing Argument. Those findings are hereby accepted and incorporated into this Recommended Order by reference. The Amended Final Agency Audit Report and supporting work papers admitted in evidence in this case show that Meji received overpayments in the amount of $2,851.19. No evidence to the contrary was offered by Meji. The Agency incurred costs during the investigation of this matter. The amount of those costs was not known at the time the final hearing was conducted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency enter a final order requiring Meji's to repay the Agency the principal amount of $2,851.19 plus interest as provided in Section 409.913, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Debora A. Fridie, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sola Gafaru, President Meji, Inc. 14812 Northwest 7th Avenue Miami, Florida 33168 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3116 Fort Knox Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Fort Knox Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or Petitioner), is entitled to a recoupment for a Medicaid overpayment to Respondent, Humane Minority, Inc. (Humane or Respondent), in the amount of $177,581.26.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program. As part of its duties, Petitioner attempts to recover Medicaid overpayments from Medicaid providers. At all times material to this case, Humane was licensed to provide various health care services to Medicaid recipients under a contract to AHCA as a Medicaid provider. As provider number 255724000, Humane participated in the Medicaid program from January 1, 2005, to February 8, 2006 (audit period). As a Medicaid provider, Respondent was subject to audit. This case arose when the Discovery Unit of Medicaid Program Integrity (MPI) identified that during the audit period Humane billed 1.5 times as much for one week as compared to ten other weeks, which is an indicator of billing irregularities. As a result, the Discovery Unit of MPI recommended a comprehensive audit of Humane. Gary Mosier, a Registered Nursing Consultant employed by AHCA in the bureau of MPI, initiated the audit of Humane after receiving the Discovery Unit’s File #47650 Recommendation memo dated May 19, 2006, referring Humane for a comprehensive audit. On or about June 13, 2006, MPI requested 30 random Medicaid patients' records from Humane’s entire Medicaid patient group for the audit period. Humane complied with the request and supplied records. The submitted medical records included a Certificate of Completeness of Records from Humane stating the documents supplied constituted all of the Medicaid-related records for the 30 patients during the Audit period. After Humane provided the requested medical records to Mosier, he forwarded the records to three physician consultants: Machado, a general practitioner; Edgar, a psychiatrist; and Reisman, an urologist. Each physician consultant reviewed Humane’s records relevant to his area of expertise and filled out agency worksheets detailing why claims should be disallowed. MPI reviewed Humane’s records provided and the worksheets filled out by the three physician consultants and determined that overpayments were made to Humane due to numerous services in whole or in part not being covered by Medicaid, which violated various Medicaid policy guidelines set forth in both the Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook (General Handbook)1 and the Florida Medicaid Physician Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook (Physician Services Handbook).2 Humane violated policy by providing documentation that supported a lower level of office visit than the one for which Humane billed and received payment. Humane violated policy by billing and receiving payments for some services that were not documented. Humane violated policy by billing and receiving payment for services rendered by a practitioner who was not a member of Humane’s group. Humane violated policy by billing for procedure codes that have time requirements but not documenting the time spent providing the service. Humane violated policy by billing and receiving payment for services performed by another practitioner who was not enrolled in Medicaid at the time the services were rendered. Humane violated policy by billing and receiving payment for services for which the medical records, when reviewed by a Medicaid physician consultant, indicated that the services provided did not meet the Medicaid criteria for medical necessity. Humane violated policy by billing for radiology services when the reading and interpretation was done by a radiologist outside of the physician’s group. Humane violated policy and was paid for billing and received payment for portable x-ray services where Humane performed only the technical component and an independent interpreter performed the professional component. Humane violated policy and received payment when Humane did not bill according to the current procedural terminology guidelines in certain instances. On March 13, 2007, MPI issued its Preliminary Audit Report (PAR). The report detailed the Medicaid policy violations, overpayment amounts, and provided Humane the opportunity to submit an explanation or additional documentation demonstrating that some or all of the claims were properly paid. The report also notified Humane that a Final Audit Report (FAR) would be issued identifying the amount of overpayment due. Humane did not respond to the PAR. Consequently, on April 27, 2007, MPI issued a FAR, that included the amount of $177,581.26 that Humane received from Medicaid that was not authorized to be paid. This grand total of $177,581.26 constitutes an overpayment that Humane must return to the agency. A Final Audit Report-Corrected Copy was issued on May 22, 2007, correcting the total amount due.3 In addition to the overpayment amount, Petitioner also seeks a fine in the amount of $3,000.00. The fine is a calculated amount as authorized by rule.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency enter a final order requiring Humane to repay the Agency for the principal amount of $177,581.26 together with an administrative fine of $3000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY 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 22nd day of June, 2009.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent properly maintained and supplied required records to support and document prescription claims, which it billed to Medicaid and for which it received payment from the Medicaid program during the audit period of April 1, 2000 through December 31, 2001. If that is not the case, it must be determined whether the Agency is entitled to recoup from the Respondent the sum it seeks of $108,478.77, as the purported amount overpaid to the Respondent by the Agency. It must also be determined whether the applicable laws and regulations referenced herein were complied with by the Respondent, in terms of its accepting and filling prescriptions, dispensing relevant drugs, and recording and documenting such activities in its pharmacy records. Finally, it must be determined whether the statistical methodologies employed by the Agency, through its audit and investigation of the Respondent, were sufficiently representative and accurate so as to support the calculation of estimated overpayments.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an Agency of the State of Florida charged by the statutes and rules referenced herein with ensuring that proper reimbursement is effected to providers, including pharmacies, by the Medicaid system. Because of its duty to enforce and regulate the Medicaid system, the Petitioner Agency has an audit and oversight function, as well as an enforcement function, to ensure that Medicaid payments and the general operations of the Medicaid system are carried out correctly. It is through this duty imposed by the cited Florida Statutes and rules, as well as the federal regulations it is charged with enforcing, that the Petitioner carried out an audit of the Respondent, Brown Pharmacy, concerning the audit period of April 1, 2000 through December 31, 2001. The Petitioner conducts audits of providers such as Brown in order to ensure compliance with the Medicaid provisions and Medicaid provider agreements. These are called "integrity audits" and are routinely performed by auditors contracted from private firms such as Heritage. Brown Pharmacy (Brown) is licensed in the State of Florida as a pharmacy (license Number PH562). Brown maintained a business location at 312 West 8th Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32206, at times pertinent to this case. During the audit period Brown was an enrolled Medicaid provider authorized to provide Medicaid prescriptions pursuant to a provider agreement with the Agency. The terms of the provider agreement governed the contractual relationship between Brown and the Agency. Pursuant to that provider agreement, Brown was to maintain the Medicaid-related records and documentation for at least five years. Any Medicaid provider, such as Brown, not in compliance with the Medicaid documentation and record retention policies may be subject to the recoupment of Medicaid payments. During the audit period, Brown dispensed prescription drugs to Medicaid recipients. Medicaid claims were filed and paid electronically as "point of sale" transactions during the audit period. Each claim reviewed and at issue in this case was a paid Medicaid claim subject to the provider agreement and pertinent regulations. As a condition of participating in the Medicaid program, a Medicaid provider must comply with all provisions of a provider agreement, which is a voluntarily agreement between the Agency and the provider. Those provisions include the provider's agreement to comply with all relevant local, state and federal laws, rules, regulations, licensure laws, bulletins, manuals, and handbooks, etc. The provider must agree to keep and maintain, in a systematic and orderly manner, all Medicaid- related records as may be required by the Agency and make them available for state and federal agencies and review. It must maintain complete and accurate medical, business, and fiscal records that will justify and disclose the extent of goods and services rendered to customers or patients and rendered as billings to the Medicaid system. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-4.250 promulgates, as part of the rule, the above-referenced handbook (handbook) which sets out Medicaid polices and rules. The polices and rules govern the rights and responsibilities of drug providers, such as Brown, including coverage and payment methodologies for services and goods rendered to Medicaid recipients and billed to the Medicaid program. The types of records that must be maintained are as follows: Medicaid claim forms, professional records such as patient treatment plans, prior and post authorization information, prescription records, business records, including accounting ledgers, financial statements, purchase and acquisition records etc., tax records, patient counseling information and provider enrollment documentation. Providers who are not in compliance with the Medicaid documentation and record retention policies described in the handbook are subject to administrative sanctions and/or recoupment of Medicaid payments. Medicaid payments for services that lack required documentation and/or appropriate signatures will be recouped. Chapter five of the handbook, in defining overpayment provides that any amount not authorized to be paid by the Medicaid program, whether paid as a result of inaccurate or improper cost reporting, improper claims, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse or mistake, constitutes overpayment. Incomplete records are records that lack documentation that all requirements or conditions for the providing of services have been met. Medicaid may recoup payments for services or goods when the provider has incomplete records or cannot locate the records. The Agency contracted with Heritage to conduct an on- site audit at Brown. The audit was conducted March 18th through March 20, 2002. Heritage isolated a sample of 205 prescription claims, known as the "judgmental sample" out of a total universe of paid pharmacy claims from Brown totaling 16,727 for the audit period. Heritage also selected 250 random prescription claims out of the remaining total universe of paid pharmacy claims of 16,522, which remained after the 205 judgmental sample claims had been removed or isolated from the remainder of the total claims. With the acquiescence of the Agency, Heritage chose the 205 claims by weighing it in favor of the "high dollar" or more expensive drug prescriptions. Those prescriptions are primarily for HIV and Aids therapy drugs and psychotherapeutic drugs for various mental conditions, including schizophrenia. Weighing of the judgmental sample strongly in favor of the high dollar prescription claims would seem to render the judgmental sample fundamentally unfair against Brown if the judgmental sample had then been extrapolated to the entire universe of claims ($16,727). This was not done, however. The judgmental sample was audited and compiled by doing an actual count and totaling of claim amounts in dollars represented by all the discrepant prescriptions, including all those the Agency and Heritage maintained resulted in "overpayments" to Brown. Therefore, the judgmental sample is an actual number rather than an extrapolated calculation so that weighing the sample in favor of the high dollar prescriptions does not result in an unfair or biased sample, as to the judgmental sample. Because the judgmental sample was drawn from the total pool of audited claims and removed from that claim pool prior to the identification and drawing of the random sample, the two are mutually exclusive and the amounts calculated do not represent a duplication or overlap. Thus the findings from the judgmental sample and then the random sample may be properly added together. The randomly selected claims (random sample) were taken of the remaining 16,522 claims in the audit claim pool after the judgmental sample of 205 claims had been removed. According to the report rendered by Heritage, the 250 randomly selected claims totaled $10,632.59 in paid Medicaid dollars. The Heritage auditors determined that there were 56 discrepant claims out of these which totaled, according to their calculation, $2,450.13 in apparent overpayments. This resulted in an average overcharge per claim of $9.80 (determined by dividing the documented "sanction amount" by the total number of claims in the random sample (250), multiplied by the universe of claims from which the random sample was taken (16,522) which yielded an extrapolated overcharge of $161,924.19. Applying the statistically appropriate 95 percent "one-sided" lower confidence limit of this extrapolation resulted in a purported overpayment extrapolated from the randomly selected claims of $102,700.85. This means that the overpayment amount calculated by Heritage represents an amount statistically 95 percent certain to be the lowest amount overpayment based on the extrapolation of the overpayment represented in the 250 randomly selected claims. The non-extrapolated judgmental findings showed, according to Heritage, that there were 72 discrepant claims. Heritage then determined that, of these, there were $29,381.09 in apparent actual overcharges. The discrepancies determined by Heritage involved the failure to produce documentation of refill authorizations for 80 prescription claims; 31 prescription claims containing an incorrect Medicaid provider number; the failure to produce 12 "hard copy" prescriptions representing 25 claims; four claims that did not have the prescriber's DEA number on the prescription for controlled substances; three claims for prescriptions that did not contain the original date of service; two claims that were billed for quantities greater than that authorized by the physician; one claim that was billed for an incorrect day's supply; one claim that was billed in excess of the maximum allowable quantity of prescription of the drug, set by Medicaid policy; and one prescription claim that was billed for an incorrect prescriber's Medicaid provider number (although this should not be a discrepancy because the correct prescriber was documented in the pharmacy's computer, which the regulations allowed). Additionally, there was one claim billed for a drug different than that prescribed by the physician, according to Heritage in its report. Heritage also conducted an invoice review using utilization reports provided by the Respondent. This was apparently a review of 25 different drugs that purportedly showed that the prorated purchases of those drugs were insufficient to cover the number of units billed to Medicaid for all 25 drugs reviewed, and thus yielded a purported shortage of $87,942.13, representing the amount billed to Medicaid above the amount the records of purchases from suppliers proved that Brown had purchased of those drugs. Based upon the Heritage audit as well as documentation findings and overpayments calculations (see Exhibit 8), the Agency issued a PAAR dated September 27, 2002, determining that Brown had been overpaid $150,036.71 for Medicaid claims during the audit period. That report advised Brown that it was a provisional report only and encouraged Brown to submit any additional information or documentation which might serve to change the overpayment. The report listed examples of documentation that the Agency would consider for a possible reduction in the overpayment amount initially claimed. Thereafter, the Agency agreed to an extension of time for Brown to submit additional documentation and sent a letter to Brown dated October 31, 2003, advising that the audit had been placed in abeyance pending the outcome in a related case, but that the Agency expected to resume the audit and that therefore all Medicaid-related records and documentation regarding paid claims should be maintained and preserved until the audit was finalized. The FAAR was addressed in the testimony of Ms. Stewart for the Agency. Through her testimony it was revealed that certain corrections should be made to the FAAR updating it from the findings in the Heritage initial audit report. The Agency corrected the information in the FAAR for this reason and for the reason that it secured some additional information from the Respondent. Thus, for the audit period it was established that there were 16,727 total claims for prescriptions dispensed by Brown, for which it was paid $795,564.59 during the 21-month audit period, of those claims, 205 were pulled out from the total universe of claims as the judgmental sample. There were some 72 allegedly "discrepant claims" totaling $36,393.51 in dollars paid to Brown. The Agency's position is that $29,381.09 of those are so called "documented overcharges." The random sample of 250 claims was extrapolated to the remaining universe of 16,522 prescription claims. The Agency now takes the position that it found 49 "discrepant claims" in the random sample which totaled $2,154.40 in dollars paid to Brown's pharmacy and of that it maintains that $1,927.55 are "documented overcharges" for the 250 randomly selected claims (for which Brown had been paid $10,632.59). Thus the Agency found an average overcharge for the 250 randomly sampled claims of $7.71 per claim. The $7.71 average per claim overcharge was then multiplied by the remaining universe of 16,522 claims, yielding an extrapolated purported overcharge of $127,387.92. The Agency then applied the 95 percent "one-sided lower confidence limit" to this extrapolation, that is, that it or its statistician, Dr. Johnson, felt that there was a 95 percent chance that the lower confidence limit number it calculated was accurate. That number is $79,097.68. When that number is combined with the Agency's position as to overcharges from the judgmental sample results in a total postulated overcharge of $108,478.77. This is the final amount the Agency claims as an overpayment that must be recouped for Medicaid. The FAAR summarized the discrepant claims for the judgmental sample as follows: 61 claims involve refills which exceeded the authorized number of refills without documentation of reauthorization; 10 claims showed an incorrect prescriber license number but the correct prescriber license number was documented in the pharmacy's computer; and For two claims the hard copy description did not have an original date of service depicted on it and did not reference a DEA number. The discrepant claims shown in the FAAR as to the random sample were as follows: There were 19 claims for refills without documentation of refill authorization (refills had been previously authorized, but for the 19 claims at least one refill had been issued beyond the authorization limit); Fifteen claims showed an incorrect prescriber license number on the claim and the license number was not documented in the Respondent's computer; Seven claims showed an incorrect prescriber license number, but the correct license number was documented in the pharmacy's computer; There were seven claims for which the original hard copy prescriptions could not be found on file during the audit period; For one claim the hard copy prescription did not have an original date of service or DEA number; For one claim the quantity paid exceeded the quantity authorized by the prescriber or dispensed to the recipient; and For one claim the number of days supply submitted by the pharmacy was not consistent with the quantity and directions of the prescriber and the quantity exceeded the limit set by the plan. The most common discrepancies with regard to the judgmental sample and the random sample occurred when the Respondent billed refills in excess of the number authorized by the prescriber, without any written authorization for such being provided in the audit process or later. Concerning the random sample, the second most common discrepancy occurred when the claim depicted an incorrect precriber number on the claim and the license number of the prescriber was not documented in the computer. In the judgmental sample the second most common discrepancy occurred when the claim showed an incorrect prescriber number, but the correct prescriber number was documented in the pharmacy's computer. The discrepancies in the FAAR with the indication "UR", references "unauthorized refills." The records of the pharmacy showed that Brown issued refills of prescriptions to Medicaid recipients in excess of the presriber's limit depicted on the prescriptions but showed no written record of a telephonic or written authorization by the prescriber allowing the additional refill or refills. It is also true that as to some or even many of these the Respondent may have obtained verbal authorization, but failed to document that re- authorization. Medicaid policy, the statutory authority cited herein, and the PDSCLR Handbook provide that all verbal orders authorized by the prescriber of a prescription must be recorded either as a "hard copy" or noted in the pharmacy's computer in order to comply with the relevant law cited herein, for record- keeping and auditing purposes under Medicaid policy. The Agency's Statistical Methodology Mark E. Johnson, Ph.D., testified on behalf of the Petitioner. He was qualified as an expert witness in the area of statistical formulas, statistical methodology, and random sampling, including the random sample statistical methodology employed by the Agency in determining the overpayment amount. He is a professor of statistics at the University of Central Florida. Dr. Johnson reviewed the statistical methodology, numbers and calculations arrived at by the Agency and its extrapolation method of arriving at the overpayment amount. He also used his own independent analysis based upon a software package he commonly uses in the practice of his discipline in testing the methodology employed by the Agency and the random sample employed by the Agency and Heritage. The statistical formula employed by Dr. Johnson and the Agency is a standard one routinely used in Dr. Johnson's profession and statistical sampling. He established through his own testing of the methodology that the random sample was appropriate for Medicaid program integrity audits and determinations as employed in this case. The random sampling, according to Dr. Johnson, was employed because it would be time and cost prohibitive to examine individually each of 16,522 claims regarding overpayment issues. The random sampling methodology using 250 randomly chosen samples is a time and cost saving device and yet still presents a "plausible estimate" as established by Dr. Johnson. He established that for the universe of 16,522 claims which were subjected to the random sample and extrapolation statistical analysis and calculation, that such is a reasonable sample for purposes of this audit and that the 250 random samples employed by the Agency are indeed statistically appropriate random samples. His calculation of overpayment was at variance with the Agency's by 55 cents. He established that is not a significant difference since the 95 percent certainty limit of $79,097.68 for the random sample extrapolation analysis is so much lower than the estimate established at $108,478.22. Dr. Johnson established that the Agency had employed appropriate and valid statistical methods in its determination of the above-referenced overpayment amount based upon the random sample of paid claims. The expert testimony of Dr. Johnson, together with his written report in evidence, is credible and persuasive as to the validity of the random sampling of the claims during the audit period and as to the random sample portion of the analysis employed in arriving at the final overpayment calculation and numbers depicted in the FAAR. Dr. Johnson established the appropriateness of the statistical formula, including extrapolation, used to calculate the overpayment amount, the appropriateness of the sample size relative to the universe of claims, and the improbability that the overpayment amount is attributable to chance causes alone. Thus Dr. Johnson's testimony is accepted as credible and persuasive in establishing the validity of the Agency's method of overpayment calculation, and the overpayment calculation in conjunction with the statistical evidence in this record, except as modified by the findings below.1/ The Respondent's Position Gary Steinberg testified on behalf of the Respondent, Brown Pharmacy. He was accepted as an expert witness in the areas of Medicaid policy, audits and pharmacy practice, including Florida pharmacy practice. Mr. Steinberg acknowledged that Brown had not properly documented all claims that had been paid by the Medicaid program nor maintained all required records. He emphasized in his testimony, however, that Brown had not fraudulently billed the Medicaid program with claims for prescription medications that it had not actually dispensed to the patients or recipients. Rather, all medications involved in the subject prescription claims had actually been dispensed. There is no evidence or claim on the part of the Agency that Brown charged and collected more than the appropriate approved price for the prescriptions at issue. Through the explanation given in his testimony, Mr. Steinberg opined that although Brown was guilty of technical errors in record keeping and documentation as to the prescriptions involved in the subject claims, Brown had made substantial compliance with the Medicaid program requirements of the Medicaid provider agreement and the statutes and rules at issue and policies embodied in the subject handbook. He explained in his testimony that in the pharmacy practice setting in which Brown has operated, whereby it serves a large indigent population in an inner city environment, it is difficult to contact a prescriber at the time when a patient needs a critical prescription refilled in order to get a refill authorization. The prescriptions at issue mostly involve critical medications for HIV/Aids and psychotropic medications for severe mental conditions such as schizophrenia. The patients who need these critical medications (and there are very few patients, since most of the procedures involve filling and refilling for a small number of such recipients) are patients of clinics operated at the nearby university hospital (Shands). In these circumstances, where the patient literally needs the HIV/Aids medication refilled on an immediate basis, possibly even to prevent death, and the mental health patient critically needs a refill in order to prevent harm to the patient or harm to the members of the public if the patient goes without medication and "decompensates," the ethical thing for a pharmacist to do is to refill the prescription and seek authorization later. Mr. Steinberg established that it is often difficult to obtain authorization from the original prescriber since the medication were prescribed by residents practicing in the various clinics at the Shands Hospital and that the residents can not always be identified or contacted easily since they do not maintain a fixed medical practice in the area. Consequently, some of the prescriptions were not documented as to authorization, although in some cases the pharmacy actually obtained authorization and entered it in its computer. In some cases, being unable to obtain re-authorization from the resident who originally prescribed the medication the pharmacy used the DEA license or prescribing number of the hospital itself. He explained that although under the law a pharmacy can refill a prescription on an emergency basis for up to a 72-hour supply, that this is generally impracticable and unsafe for patients in this plight because such indigent, mental health and HIV/Aids patients tend to be non-compliant with their medication regimes quite often anyway, and it is often unreasonable to expect them to return to the pharmacy for another refill within two or three days. He thus opined that the ethical and safe thing for the pharmacist to do was to refill and re-dispense the medical approved medication for up to a 30 or 34-day supply (the normal refill supply duration). He further explained that the Shands Hospital license number was used in some of these circumstances because the resident doctor who originally issued the prescription could not be identified on the Shands Hospital prescription forms and because the resident doctors at the Shands clinics only have and can use Shands Hospital prescription forms in any event. Mr. Steinberg thus established that 35 percent of those prescription claims classified as "WMP," that is the prescription claims contained an incorrect prscriber license number were for these reasons and the pharmacist could only use the Shands Hospital license number because the resident could not be identified from the Shands Hospital prescription forms. He thus opined that 35 percent of the random sample extrapolation amount, the 95 percent statistical confidence limit amount of $79,097.00, should be deleted from that amount in determining the correct amount of overpayment predicated on the random sample. Likewise, with regard to the judgmental sample concerning the HIV/Aids and mental health patient prescriptions and related claims, he opined that, in effect, $19,500.00 of the total $29,381.09 overpayment amount claimed by the Agency pursuant to the judgmental sample portion of the claims, should be deleted from that portion of the overpayment claim by the Agency; this is a result of his explanation regarding "substantial compliance" in the critical refill situation he described concerning the HIV/Aids and mental health patients and their prescription drugs. The preponderant, persuasive evidence does establish (and indeed the Agency acknowledged in its Proposed Recommended Order) with regard to the judgmental sample, that 10 of the claims at issue listed an incorrect prescriber license number, but that the correct prescriber license number was actually documented in the pharmacy's computer record with the name of the prescriber. This circumstances comports with the law referenced below and in the Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order. This results in a reduction in the overpayment claim with regard to the judgmental sample of 13.88 percent of the judgmental sample claims or a reduction of $4,078.09. Likewise, with regard to the random sample extrapolation calculation of overpaid claims, the preponderant, persuasive evidence, also as acknowledged by the Agency in its Proposed Recommended Order, disclosed that seven claims listed an incorrect prescriber license number on the claims, but had been correctly documented in the pharmacy's computer system and therefore were in compliance with the relevant statutes, rules, and the subject handbook. Thus the discrepant claims and the overpayment amount related to the random sample portion of the audit claims should be reduced by 14.28 percent of the total amount of $79,097.00 for a $11,295.05 reduction of that $79,097.00 random sample overpayment amount. Mr. Steinberg demonstrated that Brown was not overcharging on the drugs prescribed and dispensed and was charging the Medicaid-authorized amount for the drugs involved in the prescription claims at issue. The Agency is not claiming that there was any fraudulent practice or illegal overcharging for the prescriptions involved. In fact, Brown was earning only a very small profit on the drugs dispensed that are the subject of the prescription claims at issue. Mr. Steinberg thus opined that since Brown did indeed dispense all the drugs at issue and was only paid the legal authorized amounts for the drugs and prescriptions at issue that recoupment of the amounts sought by the Agency or, in effect, established in these findings of fact, would be fundamentally unfair. He and the Respondent contend, rather, that since Brown performed substantial compliance, but was guilty of technical non-compliance with the relevant rules, agreement, and Medicaid policy, that the Agency should impose a lesser fine instead of seeking recoupment. In summary, in view of the preponderant persuasive evidence establishing the above facts, it has been shown that the documentation and record-keeping, dispensing errors, and omissions in the manner found above, with regard to the prescription claims and types of claims addressed in the above findings of fact, occurred. If those deficiencies amount to violations of the authority cited and discussed below which justify recoupment, then the amount of overpayment established by the above findings of fact is $93,104.95.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Agency for Health Care Administration providing for recoupment of $93,104.95, and that the Respondent, Brown Pharmacy, must re-pay that amount to the Petitioner Agency, through a reasonable re- payment plan established between the parties. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida Medicaid provider; provider number 100412. Respondent is the state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid program pursuant to Section 409.901-409.920, Florida Statutes. Respondent reimburses hospitals for inpatient services supplied to Medicaid eligible recipients if the services are medically necessary. Services are medically necessary if: ". . . provided in a hospital on an inpatient basis [and cannot], consistent with the provisions of appropriate medical care, be effectively furnished more economically on an outpatient basis or in an inpatient facility of a different type." Florida Administrative Code Rule 10C-7.039. Respondent utilizes the 1986 Interqual ISD criteria to determine the medical necessity of services rendered by Medicaid providers. ISD is an acronym for severity of illness, intensity of service, and discharge screens. Severity of illness indicates the severity of the patient's condition on admission. Intensity of service relates to the diagnostic and therapeutic services the patient receives while hospitalized. Discharge screens indicate the patient's readiness for discharge. Petitioner had actual notice of the applicable ISD criteria to be used in determining Medicaid coverage for inpatient services. The amount of Medicaid benefits at issue in this proceeding, the patients, and the dates of hospitalization to which the benefits apply are as follows: (a) Laura Lakatos, 10/17/89 to 11/9/89, $13,351.27; Jeannette Moore, 3/19/90 to 3/24/90, $2,324.26; Catherine Rosa, 3/16/90 to 3/20/90, $580.49; Cheyenne Williams, 1/20/90 to 2/1/90, $3,482.94; Kimberly Williams, 2/20/90 to 3/6/90, $8,126.86; and (f) Gail Woodley, 8/28/89 to 9/28/89, $17,995.19 Ms. Laura Lakatos was admitted clinically intoxicated. Her drug screens showed cocaine metabolites. The ISD criteria in effect at the time of her admission required the patient to be comatose or in an impending comatose condition prior to any clinical findings and the presence of one of the following clinical findings: delirium and/or mania; impending delirium tremens; or seizures (withdrawal or toxic). Ms. Lakatos' condition upon admission satisfied none of the applicable ISD criteria. She was confused, delusional, and had slurred speech but was neither comatose nor suffering from an impending comatose condition. She did not suffer from impending delirium tremens or seizures. No evidence was introduced that she suffered from delirium and/or mania or was otherwise not in actual contact with reality. Ms. Lakatos could have been treated in more economical setting. Ms. Jeannette Moore's chief complaint on admission was pain in both thighs. The ISD criteria applicable to Ms. Moore at the time of admission required one of the following findings to be present in order to continue inpatient hospitalization for Medicaid reimbursement purposes: monitoring (at least every 2 hours); intravenous medications; or treatments of radioactive materials or plasma, surgery. Ms. Moore satisfied the ISD criteria for one day of inpatient services. On the second day, she did not meet the ISD criteria for intensity of service and should have been released. Ms. Catherine Rosa was admitted on March 16, 1990, to deliver her baby. She had a normal vaginal delivery for which Medicaid covers two days of hospitalization. Ms. Rosa did not satisfy the ISD criteria for continued hospitalization after March 17, 1990, and should have been released on March 18, 1990. Ms. Cheyenne Williams was admitted on January 20, 1990, and placed on a detoxification program with seizure precautions. She was given both oral and intramuscular medication for seizure prevention. While Ms. Williams satisfied applicable ISD criteria upon admission, none of the requisite clinical findings were present after January 24, 1990, and Ms. Williams should have been released from the hospital on January 25, 1990. Ms. Kimberly Williams was admitted on February 20, 1990, for drug addiction. She was agitated, depressed, had delusions of grandeur, a tremor, and an irregular gait. Her toxicology screen showed nicotine and cocaine metabolites. Mr. Williams did not meet the ISD criteria for admission. She was neither comatose nor suffering from an impending comatose condition. She did not meet ISD criteria of delirium and/or mania, impending delirium tremens, or seizures to warrant hospital admission. She could have been treated in a more economical setting. Ms. Gail Woodley was admitted on August 28, 1989, for drug addiction. She had slurred speech and tremors. Her toxicology screen showed cocaine metabolites. The uncontroverted evidence established that Ms. Woodley failed to meet the ISD criteria for inpatient services.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be Respondent the following amounts: of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is issued requiring Petitioner to reimburse Laura Lakatos $13,351.27 Jennette Moore $ 2,324.26 Catherine Rosa $ 580.49 Cheyenne Williams $ 3,482.94 Kimberly Williams $ 8,126.86 Gail Woodley $17,995.19 TOTAL $45,861.01 RECOMMENDED this 12th day of January 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-1065 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.-2. Accepted in finding 1. 3. Accepted in finding 4. 4. Accepted in finding 5. 5. Accepted in finding 6. 6. Accepted in finding 4. 7. Accepted in finding 7. 8. Accepted in finding 8. 9. Accepted in finding 4. 10. Accepted in finding 9. 11. Accepted in finding 4. Rejected as irrelevant. Accepted in finding 9. Accepted in finding 4. Accepted in finding 11. Accepted in finding 12. Accepted in finding 4. 18.-19. Accepted in finding 13. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.-2. Accepted in finding 1. 3.-5. Accepted in finding 2. 6. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 7.-8. Accepted in finding 3. 9.-10. Rejected as irrelevnat and immaterial. 11. Accepted in finding 17. 12.-13. Accepted in finding 18. 14.-16. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 17. Accepted in finding 4. 18. Accepted in finding 3. 19.-20. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 21. Accepted in findings 5, 12-13. 22.-25. Acceepted in finding 5. 26.-28. Accepted in finding 7. 29. Accepted in finding 8. 30.-31. Accepted in finding 9. 32.-35. Accepted in finding 10. 36.-37. Accepted in finding 11. 38.-39. Accepted in finding 12. 40.-42. Accepted in finding 13. COPIES FURNISHED: Deborah A. Rogers, R.N. Administrative Director Utilization Management Hialeah Hospital 651 East 25 Street Hialeah, Florida 33013 Gordon B. Scott, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services HRS Medicaid Office 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 234A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues in the case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 456.072(1)(q) and 456.072(1)(gg), Florida Statutes (2005),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Board is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of nursing pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 456 and 464, Florida Statutes. Ms. Cassel is and has been at all times material to this case a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RN 9177327. The Intervention Project for Nurses (I.P.N.) is part of the impaired practitioner programs established pursuant to Subsection 456.072(1), Florida Statutes. The mission of I.P.N. is to ensure public health and safety by providing an avenue for swift intervention and close monitoring of nurses whose practice may be impaired due to the use, misuse, or abuse of alcohol or drugs, or a mental and/or physical condition. Any nurse, including employers who are nurses, are required to report any nurse who is in violation of the Nurse Practices Act. Nurses may be referred to I.P.N. instead of being reported to the Board if the violation is associated with impairment due to drugs, alcohol, psychiatric or physical problems. Nurses who are referred to I.P.N. must voluntarily request admission to I.P.N. In 2005, Ms. Cassel was hospitalized after attempting suicide by ingesting alcohol and Amitriptyline. Amitriptyline is an anti-depressant, which Ms. Cassel received after completing an online application listing her symptoms. Ms. Cassel was employed as a registered nurse with the Visiting Nurses Association at the time of her attempted suicide. Following her attempted suicide, Ms. Cassel asked an employee at her work place about a referral program, and Ms. Cassel was given the telephone number of I.P.N. In April 2005, Ms. Cassel contacted I.P.N. to see if I.P.N. had a referral program for depression. When Ms. Cassel initially contacted I.P.N., she was advised by I.P.N. staff that Cherry Pfau from the Visiting Nurses Association had contacted I.P.N. about Ms. Cassel’s attempted suicide. After her initial contact with I.P.N., but prior to entering into a contract with I.P.N., Ms. Cassel received an evaluation by an I.P.N. approved evaluator. She was diagnosed with alcohol abuse versus alcohol dependency and major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate to severe. Prior to entering into the contract, Ms. Cassel began and entered into an intensive outpatient treatment program, which she successfully completed on September 25, 2005. On or about August 2005, Ms. Cassel entered into a five-year I.P.N. advocacy contract with monitoring from August 2005 through August 2010.2 Ms. Cassel was provided a Participant Manual as part of the contract. Ms. Cassel read the Participant Manual. The Participant Manual provides: USE OF MOOD-ALTERING CHEMICALS IPN participants in abstinence contracts are expected to remain free of all mood- altering, controlled, or addictive substances (including alcohol), over-the- counter drugs and prescriptive drugs. IPN does not determine if you can take a mood-altering and/or over-the-counter medication. This is a decision you and your prescribing professional (who is aware of your IPN participation) must make. IPN encourages you and your prescribing professional to explore non-mood-altering alternative methods of pain control to minimize risk to your recovery. If there is a medical need for the use of any mood-altering chemical, you are required to inform your IPN Case Manager as soon as possible, either when prescribed or the next business day. You must submit a fully completed Medication Report form to IPN. If IPN does not receive a completed Medication Report, your use of a prescribed medication may be considered a chemical relapse. In the event a random drug screen is positive and you have not informed IPN of your medication use as required, your use of the medication may be managed as a relapse. You are to refrain from providing patient care when using any prescribed mood- altering medication until authorized to return to practice by IPN. A negative urine drug screen may be required prior to return to patient care. Medically necessary, frequent or extended use of any mood-altering medications will require that an IPN- approved addictionist be involved in your case to monitor your medication management. A performance assessment and/or neuropsychological testing to determine your practice ability may be required. The contract required Ms. Cassel to participate in random drug testing. Testing positive on a random drug test is deemed to be a relapse. The Participant Manual provides: When relapse has occurred, the IPN participant and employer will be informed that the nurse or CNA must refrain from work until an IPN-facilitated evaluation is completed. . . . Nurses or CNA’s who refuse to comply with reevaluation or treatment recommendations will be dismissed from IPN and reported to [Department of Health, Florida Board of Nursing]. Ms. Cassel submitted to a random drug screen which returned positive for ethanol in November 2005 while under an abstinence contract with I.P.N. Ms. Cassel attributes the positive test result to her having taken NyQuil for the flu. She did not advise I.P.N. as required by the contract that she had taken the medication, and the use of the NyQuil was managed as a relapse. Ms. Cassel received a telephone call from Lorraine Busch, a case manager with I.P.N., advising Ms. Cassel that she had tested positive for alcohol and that she would need to be reevaluated. Ms. Cassel became angry and asked, “You mean I can’t have a glass of wine with dinner?” Ms. Busch reminded Ms. Cassel that she was in an abstinence contract. Ms. Cassel did not tell Ms. Busch that she had taken NyQuil. Ms. Cassel also told Ms. Busch that she was on her way to a job orientation and that she was not going to participate in the I.P.N. any longer because she did not think that the program was geared for persons suffering from depression. Ms. Cassel was upset, essentially told the I.P.N. case manager that I.P.N. could take the program and “put it where the sun doesn’t shine,” and hung up on her. Ms. Cassel received a letter from I.P.N. dated November 8, 2005, informing her that, following her positive urine drug screen for alcohol, she was required to refrain from the nursing practice and was required to schedule an evaluation with either Martha Brown, M.D.; Chowallur Chacko, M.D.; or Richard Saini, M.D. Additionally, the letter advised Ms. Cassel that her failure to schedule an appointment or failure to keep a scheduled appointment would result in her immediate dismissal from I.P.N. Ms. Cassel did not schedule and did not appear for an evaluation with any of the evaluators listed in the letter. Ms. Cassel did not refrain from the practice of nursing. Ms. Cassel received a letter from I.P.N. dated November 22, 2005, informing her that she had been dismissed from I.P.N. effective immediately for her failure to comply with the conditions of her I.P.N. advocacy contract. The letter also advised Ms. Cassel that the information in Ms. Cassel’s I.P.N. file would be forwarded to the Department in the form of a complaint. Ms. Cassel discontinued her participation with I.P.N. prior to the end of her five-year advocacy contract with I.P.N. She did not successfully complete her five-year monitoring contract with I.P.N. On or about February 10, 2006, the Department, through the designee of the secretary of the Department, issued an Order Compelling an Examination to Ms. Cassel. A Department investigator hand-served Ms. Cassel’s attorney with a copy of the Order Compelling an Examination. The order specified that the examination was scheduled for March 7, 2006, at 11:00 a.m., at the offices of David Myers, M.D. Ms. Cassel did not provide a written objection to the Department to the Order Compelling an Examination prior to March 7, 2006. Ms. Cassel did not appear at Dr. Myers’ office on March 7, 2006, for the scheduled examination. Ms. Cassel objects to the use of a physician chosen by the Department and wants to use a physician of her own choice for an evaluation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Jean Cassel, R.N., violated Subsections 456.072(1)(q) and 456.072(1)(gg), Florida Statutes; suspending her license until she undergoes an I.P.N. evaluation and follows any and all recommendations of I.P.N.; and imposing an administrative fine of $500.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 2008.
The Issue Whether Respondent was overpaid $237,802.50 for services that in whole, or in part, are not covered by Medicaid because the services were performed by rendering providers who did not have the requisite education or work experience to meet the eligibility requirements in the Behavior Analysis Services Coverage Handbook (“BA Handbook”) to perform the services or for whom documentation was insufficient to determine eligibility; and, if so, the amount of the overpayment to be repaid, the amount of any fine to be imposed against Respondent, and the amount of any investigative, legal, and expert witness costs to be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact This case involves a Medicaid audit by AHCA of Respondent, which relates to dates of service from November 1, 2017, through December 31, 2018 ("audit period"). During the audit period, Respondent was an enrolled Medicaid provider and had a valid Medicaid provider agreement with AHCA, Medicaid Provider No. 017421300. As an enrolled Medicaid provider, Respondent was subject to the duly- enacted federal and state statutes, regulations, rules, policy guidelines, and Medicaid handbooks incorporated by reference into rule, which were in effect during the audit period. AHCA is designated as the single state agency authorized to make payments for medical assistance and related services under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. This program of medical assistance is designated the "Medicaid Program." See § 409.902, Fla. Stat. AHCA has the responsibility for overseeing and administering the Medicaid Program for the State of Florida, pursuant to section 409.913, Florida Statutes. AHCA’s Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity (MPI), pursuant to its statutory authority, conducted an audit of Respondent of paid Medicaid claims for services to Medicaid recipients. Medicaid claims are paid under what is known as a “pay and chase” system. Claims are quickly paid under the presumption the provider is billing in accordance with Medicaid law and rules. When paid claims are later audited and AHCA finds non-compliant claims, the payments are deemed overpayments and AHCA requests reimbursement. Section 409.913 allows MPI to audit for fraud and abuse. Abuse includes “[p]rovider practices that are inconsistent with generally accepted business…practices and that result in an unnecessary cost to the Medicaid program….” See § 409.913(1)(a)1., Fla. Stat. All Florida Medicaid providers are required to maintain, for at least five years, “contemporaneous documentation of entitlement to payment, including employment eligibility, compliance with all Medicaid Rules, regulations, handbooks and policies.” This includes business records, Medicaid-related records and medical records. See § 409.913(7)(e) and (f), Fla. Stat. A provider’s failure to document, in accordance with Medicaid handbooks and the Provider Enrollment Agreement, whether its rendering providers met the criteria to provide services, as stated in the promulgated handbook, is inconsistent with generally accepted business practices. Behavior analysis services are “highly structured interventions, strategies, and approaches provided to decrease maladaptive behaviors and increase or reinforce appropriate behavior for persons with mental health disorders, and developmental or intellectual disabilities.”1 Medicaid coverage for these services is limited to children under the age of 21. Behavior analysis 1 See Section 1.0 “Introduction” of Florida Medicaid Behavior Analysis Services Coverage Policy (October 2017); Fla. Admin. Code R. 59G-4.125. recipients are a vulnerable population, consisting of individuals that have mental health disorders, and intellectual and developmental disabilities, including, but not limited to, autism and Down Syndrome. They often have severe deficits in their abilities to complete self-care tasks and communicate their wants and needs. These clients are at a heightened risk of abuse, neglect, and exploitation because of their developmental disabilities and inability to self-preserve. For these reasons, persons entrusted to provided critical services must meet the minimum qualifications. To provide appropriate services to this vulnerable population, BAs are required to meet the criteria set forth in Section 3.2 of the BA Handbook, incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-4.125, “Behavior Analysis Services,” as amended, October 29, 2017. The BA Handbook requires a BA to have “a bachelor’s degree from an accredited university or college in a related human service field” and an agreement to become a Registered Behavior Technician (“RBT”) by 1/1/19; or, alternatively: (1) be at least 18 years old; (2) have a high school diploma; (3) have “at least two years of experience providing direct services to recipients with mental health disorders, developmental or intellectual disabilities”; and (4) have at least “20 hours of documented in-service trainings in the treatment of mental health, developmental or intellectual disabilities, recipient rights, crisis management strategies and confidentiality.” AHCA’S AUDIT This audit was opened in follow-up to AHCA’s statewide review of behavior analysis services. The assessment of these services revealed rampant fraud and abuse within the behavior analysis program including more than twice as many providers as recipients, providers billing unbelievable hours (such as more than 24 hours per day), and unsubstantiated qualifications, meaning that patients were receiving BA services from unqualified providers. Based on information obtained in the statewide behavior analysis review, AHCA issued a moratorium regarding new enrollments in Southeast Florida and chose a number of providers for audits. Respondent was selected for audit. Petitioner audited Respondent's records related to paid claims from November 1, 2017, through December 31, 2018. This audit period was selected because an updated Behavior Analysis Handbook was promulgated and became effective October 29, 2017.2 AHCA’s review of Respondent's records consisted of identifying the rendering providers for whom Respondent provided insufficient or no documentation to support their qualifications to render behavior analysis services. The parties stipulated that none of the rendering providers at issue had both a bachelor’s degree “in a related human services field” and had obtained their RBT by January 1, 2019. Respondent and AHCA also stipulated that the records for each rendering provider indicate they were at least 18 years old and had obtained at least a high school diploma or its equivalent. The only questions that remained was did the BA provider have the requisite two years of experience with the target population and did they have 20 hours or more of the required applicable in-service training. During the Audit Period, Respondent submitted claims for services rendered by 169 rendering providers, for which Medicaid paid Respondent a total of $3,999,828.65. Based on the audit, Petitioner initially determined Respondent had been overpaid in the amount of $1,060,590.41. AHCA issued a Preliminary Audit Report (“PAR”) dated March 25, 2019, notifying Respondent of the rendering providers deemed not qualified and the amount 2 During the MPI audit period, Respondent was placed under pre-payment review by a different section of AHCA. Respondent stopped billing during the audit period and its Medicaid provider number was terminated without cause in October 2018. As such, although the audit period was from November 1, 2017, through December 31, 2018, the last claims reviewed in the audit were for date of service March 28, 2018, as that was the date of the last paid claim. of the overpayment associated with each. Respondent was given the opportunity to pay the PAR amount or submit additional records. In response to the PAR, Respondent submitted additional records. Based on the those additional records, AHCA issued a FAR dated July 19, 2019, alleging Respondent was overpaid $905,838.36 for BA services it billed for 41 BA rendering providers who did not meet the criteria specified in the BA Handbook. In addition, the FAR informed Respondent that AHCA was seeking to impose a sanction of $2,500.00 pursuant to rule 59G-9.070(7)(c), and costs of $1,280.00 pursuant to section 409.913(23)(a). In sum, Petitioner asserted in the FAR that Respondent owed a total of $909,618.36. Kathy Herold is a Senior Pharmacist with AHCA’s MPI unit. In that capacity she assists with MPI audits. She compiles and analyzes data; applies appropriate rules, regulations, policies, and procedures to oversee the activities of Florida Medicaid providers to detect fraudulent or abusive behavior and minimize the neglect of recipients; recovers overpayments; imposes sanctions; and makes referrals as appropriate to the Florida Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, the Florida Department of Health, and the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation. She has over seventeen years’ experience in administrative investigations. She is a Certified Fraud Examiner. Ms. Herold re-reviewed the records provided by Respondent to determine whether the rendering providers for whom behavior analysis services were billed met the qualifications. AHCA did not place any limitations on how Respondent documented the qualifications of its rendering providers. AHCA’s only concern was whether the criteria were met. During the audit, and through the discovery process, Respondent supplied AHCA with copies of employment applications, resumes, letters of recommendation, and training certificates of the BAs in question. At the time of the final hearing, the qualifications of only 14 BAs remained in dispute and the amount sought in overpayment was calculated by AHCA as $237,802.50. Based on the competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence, AHCA demonstrated that the audit was properly conducted. RENDERING PROVIDERS AT ISSUE Eduardo Rodriguez The resume for Eduardo Rodriguez lists work with Abreu Quality (“Abreu”) from 2017 to “present.” It does not indicate a job title or reference any work with the target population in that job. There is no contact information that would have allowed Respondent the opportunity to verify the alleged work experience. The resume also lists “Private Case” work with a child with disabilities from 2010-2014 and 2016-2017. There is no contact information that would have allowed Respondent the opportunity to verify the alleged work experience. The application for Mr. Rodriguez, dated December 27, 2017, Mr. Rodriguez lists BA work with Abreu from February 2017 to “present” (December 27, 2017). While that listing (unlike the resume) contains contact information that would have allowed Respondent the opportunity to verify the alleged work experience, that work, even if verified, did not meet the requisite work experience as it was at most ten months. The application also lists two BA jobs for “Private Case.” There is no information provided that would have allowed Respondent the opportunity to verify the alleged work experience met the requisite work experience or the target population requirements. One private job was from 2010-2014 and the other was from 2016-2017 The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a letter of recommendation by Felicia Noval. That letter makes no reference to work with the target population. There is no indication who Ms. Noval is or how she knows Mr. Rodriguez. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a letter of recommendation by Jose Chao. However, that letter contains no indication of work with the target population. There is no indication of who Mr. Chao is or how he knows Mr. Rodriguez. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a background screening requested by Respondent. The background screening indicates that Mr. Rodriguez was not eligible to work with the target population until April 2017. Because Respondent requested the screening, it knew or should have known that Mr. Rodriguez did not have the requisite work experience. Based on conflicting information as to when Mr. Rodriguez worked at Abreu, Ms. Herold reviewed documentation submitted by Abreu to AHCA. This documentation indicates that Mr. Rodriguez only worked for them from May 18, 2017, to June 17, 2017. The documents submitted by Respondent to AHCA for Mr. Rodriguez contained training certificates for both the 20-hour BA course and the 40- hour RBT course. Mr. Rodriguez began working for Respondent on February 8, 2018. The last paid claim for Mr. Rodriguez was March 23, 2018. Based on the documentation provided by Respondent, Mr. Rodriguez did not have documented requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period, or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period. Despite Respondent having documentation that Mr. Rodriguez satisfied the training requirement, payments made by AHCA to Respondent for services billed for him are an overpayment because he did not have the requisite work experience or there is insufficient documentation that he had the requisite work experience. Fanny Vargas The application for Fanny Vargas, dated March 1, 2017, lists work as a BA/AHH for Children’s Home Services (“CHS”) from 2015-2017. There is no indication of how long Ms. Vargas performed each function. There is no indication of work with the target population in the job as an AHH. There is insufficient information to determine how long Ms. Vargas worked for CHS. The application did not provide sufficient information regarding whether Ms. Vargas had the requisite work experience. The resume for Ms. Vargas only lists BA work with CHS from 2015- “still working” (presumably March 1, 2017, the date of the application). There is still insufficient information on the resume to determine when Ms. Vargas began at CHS or if Ms. Vargas worked at CHS for over two years. The resume also lists “private service” for children with special needs from 2012- 2015. The “private service” job was not listed on the application. There is no contact information listed on the resume for the “private service” job that would have allowed anyone to verify it. The resume did not provide sufficient information regarding whether Ms. Vargas had the requisite work experience. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent indicate Ms. Vargas was not screened as a Medicaid Provider until January 14, 2017. She was enrolled as a Medicaid provider on April 4, 2017, effective January 9, 2017. She could not have provided services to the target population with CHS before then. The date of service for the last paid claim for Ms. Vargas is December 31, 2017. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Vargas had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period or by the end of the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Javier Collazo Veloz The application for Javier Collazo Veloz, dated May 4, 2017, lists work as Private Practice BA in Miami for Melissa Catano, from “08/01/2016–” (presumably May 4, 2017) and BA work for Fe y Alegria in Ecuador from March 9, 2015–April 3, 2016. Combined, those jobs do not satisfy the requisite work experience. The resume for Mr. Collazo Veloz only lists work as a BA for Fe y Alegria. However, on the resume the dates of employment are listed as July 1, 2013–July 1, 2015. Those dates conflict with the information Mr. Collazo Veloz listed on his application. Based on the conflict regarding the work with Fe y Alegria, Ms. Herold attempted to verify it. She located a website for Fe y Alegria, but the website makes no mention of work with the target population. The last paid claim for Mr. Collazo Veloz was February 16, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Mr. Collazo Veloz had the documented requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that he satisfied the training requirement. Jorge N. Bernal The application for Jorge N. Bernal, dated March 29, 2017, lists work as an x-ray technician from April 15, 2015, to July 17, 2015. There is no indication of work with the target population and the nature of that work would not contribute to the requisite work experience. Overlapping with the x-ray technician job, Mr. Bernal also lists he was a teacher at Jesus Para Todos from December 1, 2012, to March 15, 2016. The resume makes no mention of work with the target population associated with that job and there is no contact information on the application that Respondent could have used to verify the alleged work experience. The resume for Mr. Bernal only lists the teacher job at Jesus Para Todos, but there is no contact information to verify the employment. The resume indicates that job involved work with the target population. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained numerous documents indicating Mr. Bernal was born June 16, 1993. That means that Mr. Bernal was purportedly “teaching” when he was only 17. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent also contained an honor roll certificate which indicates that Mr. Bernal was attending college while purportedly “teaching.” The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent post-PAR contained a letter of reference from International Ministry of Jesus for All (“Jesus Para Todos”) dated March 19, 2019. That letter does not clearly corroborate that Mr. Bernal was teaching there. The letter from Jesus Para Todos indicated it was a church, not a school. The letter further indicates that Mr. Bernal “was able to serve to the kid’s ministry and youth groups, teaching kids and youth and serving in our community, and participate in helping special need kids in our church.” Mr. Bernal began work for Respondent on November 7, 2017. The last paid claim for Mr. Bernal is February 17, 2018. Thus, not only could the letter from Jesus Para Todos not have been used to verify work in the hiring process, it also was not created until after the audit period and almost one year after the end of Mr. Bernal’s employment with Respondent. Given the conflicting information regarding Jesus Para Todos, Ms. Herold attempted to verify the facility. She discovered there was no online presence for the facility, and it was not listed in the State’s database of private schools or licensed daycares. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Mr. Bernal had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that he satisfied the training requirement. Leyanis Morffi The application for Leyanis Morffi, dated June 30, 2017, lists two cashier jobs. The nature of that work would not contribute to the requisite work experience. The application also lists work as a paid childcare worker at Smiles Childcare from October 2014 to November 2016. However, there is no mention of work with the target population at that job. The resume for Ms. Morffi lists the same work experience that was listed on the application. Again, there is no reference to work with the target population at the childcare job. The resume further indicates that Ms. Morffi “specializes in homes for the elderly and youth detention facilities.” However, there is no listing of that type of work on the application or resume. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a background screening requested by Respondent. The screening indicates that Ms. Morffi was not eligible to work with the target population until February 2017. Because Respondent requested the screening, it knew or should have known that Ms. Morffi did not have the requisite work experience. Documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a letter of reference dated September 5, 2017, from Lazaro Noel Suarez. That letter is dated post-hire and was provided to AHCA post-PAR. It references one year of BA work. However, it provides no specific dates or date range, and contains no contact information that could be used to verify the information. Neither the application nor the resume indicates any BA work prior to Respondent to which this letter could correlate. Documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a letter of reference dated July 30, 2017, from Doris Jimenez. That letter is dated post- hire and was provided to AHCA post-PAR. It makes no reference to work with the target population. It makes no mention of the relationship between Ms. Morffi and Ms. Jimenez. The letter does not indicate where the work was performed. Documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contain a letter of reference dated April 5, 2018. The author is unknown as the signature is illegible. That letter is dated post-hire and was provided to AHCA post-PAR. It references work at Smiles Childcare from October 2014 to May 2017. While the letter mentions work with the target population, there is no way to determine who wrote the letter or the author’s relationship to Ms. Morffi. The letter contains no contact information that could be used to verify the information. The dates of service in the letter conflict with the dates of service listed by Ms. Morffi in her application and resume. The letter indicates that Ms. Morffi was a volunteer, while her application indicates she earned $10.00 per hour. While volunteer work would count toward requisite work experience, the conflicting information undermines the credibility of both this letter and the information provided by Ms. Morffi. Based on the conflicting information regarding Smiles Childcare, Ms. Herold attempted to verify the information. Smiles Childcare had no internet website and was not listed by the State as a childcare facility. The last paid claim for Ms. Morffi is March 16, 2018. Not only could the April 5, 2018, letter not have been used to verify work in the hiring process, it also was not created until after the audit period and over two weeks after the end of Ms. Morffi’s employment with Respondent. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Morffi had the documented requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Luigui Melendez Tijerino The application for Luigui Melendez Tijerino, dated January 30, 2017, lists overlapping work as a Pharmacy Tech at Walmart from June 2012 to “present” (presumably the date of the application) and as a food prepper at Wendy’s from October 2013 to June 2014. There is no indication of work with the target population and the nature of those jobs would not contribute to the requisite work experience. Overlapping with the Pharmacy technician job, Mr. Melendez Tijerino also listed BA work with ABA Pro Support Services (“ABA Pro Support”) from May 2015 to January 31, 2017. The resume for Mr. Melendez Tijerino lists the same jobs as indicated on the application and also lists work as a server at “The Chelsea” from April 2011 to September 2013. There is no indication of work with the target population and the nature of that job would not contribute to the requisite work experience. Documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contain a background screening requested by Respondent. The screening indicates that Mr. Melendez Tijerino was not eligible to work with the target population until October 2016. Because Respondent requested the screening, it knew or should have known that Mr. Melendez Tijerino did not have the requisite work experience. Documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contain an undated letter of reference from Xochilt Povsic.3 That letter was provided to AHCA post-PAR. That letter references work with the target population, but it does not mention any dates that would allow anyone to determine if it satisfied the requisite work experience. The letter does not mention where the BA services were allegedly performed, and the only indication of BA work on Mr. Melendez Tijerino’s application and resume was at ABA Pro Support. Based on the conflicting information regarding work at ABA Pro Support, Ms. Herold looked further into the matter. In response to the letter sent to ABA Pro Support for the BA statewide review, ABA Pro Support advised that Mr. Melendez Tijerino was never an employee. That information was provided to AHCA on January 12, 2018. 3 Ms. Povsic is another rendering provider at issue in the audit. Ms. Povsic may be or may have been related to Mr. Melendez Tijerino as the documents submitted by Respondent for her indicate she used to be called Xochilt Tijerino. Documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contain a letter of reference dated September 23, 2016, from Walmart, that was provided to AHCA post-PAR. That letter does not reference work with the target population and the nature of the job would not contribute to the requisite work experience. Mr. Melendez Tijerino began working for Respondent on November 1, 2017. The last paid claim for Mr. Melendez Tijerino was January 27, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Mr. Melendez Tijerino had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that he satisfied the training requirement. Maria Oduber The application for Maria Oduber, dated November 29, 2017, lists “young care worker” with “Loyal Resource/CHS” from August 2015 to March 2017. There is no mention of work with the target population associated with that job. Overlapping with that job, the application lists work as client support with HOPWA Housing from March 2010 to January 2017. The application also lists work as an ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) teacher at Greystone Elementary School and as a theater teacher in “Caracas.” There is no indication of work with the target population and the nature of those jobs would not contribute to the requisite work experience. The resume for Ms. Oduber listed the same jobs as listed on the application. There was still no mention of work with the target population for any of those jobs. Ms. Oduber began working for Respondent on January 2, 2018. The last paid claim for Ms. Oduber was March 17, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Oduber had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Mey Weiss Rodriquez The application for Mey Weiss Rodriguez is dated October 4, 2017, on the front and October 10, 2017, on the back. The application lists work as an assistant at Eliseo Reyes School in “S. Spiritus, Cuba,” from September 2010 to December 2014. There is no mention of work with the target population associated with the job. The application also lists work at Provincial Veterinary Laboratory from August 1997 to August 2010. There is no indication of work with the target population and the nature of that job would not contribute to the requisite work experience. The resume submitted for Ms. Weiss Rodriguez lists the same work on the application, but with less specific information regarding dates, and no information regarding location or contact information. Contrary to the application, work with the target population is listed for Eliseo Reyes School. The resume also claims that Ms. Weiss Rodriguez is an RBT even though Respondent stipulated that none of the rendering providers at issue obtained an RBT by January 1, 2019. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a letter of recommendation dated October 4, 2017, from Carmen Yebra. The letter was provided to AHCA post-PAR and makes no mention of work with the target population. Due to the conflict regarding whether there was work with the target population, and the fact there was no documentation of independent verification of that matter, Ms. Herold attempted to verify the work experience. No search engine provided a listing for Eliseo Reyes School and Google Maps, while providing detailed information on Sancti Spiritus, Cuba, indicated the address listed on the application does not exist. The last paid claim for Ms. Weiss Rodriguez was March 17, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Weiss Rodriguez had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period, or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Sorelys Ferros On her application dated March 14, 2017, Sorelys Ferros lists work as an RBT with MHB Consultants Group (“MHB”) beginning in December 2015 with no end date listed. However, Respondent stipulated that none of the rendering providers at issue obtained an RBT by January 1, 2019. The resume for Ms. Ferros lists the job at MHB and also lists work at Respondent from March 2017 to present. On her resume, Ms. Ferros also indicates that she obtained her RBT certification in December 2015. However, as indicated above, Respondent stipulated that none of the rendering providers at issue obtained an RBT by January 1, 2019. Documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contain a background screening requested by Respondent. The screening indicates that Ms. Ferros was not eligible to work with the target population until June 2016. As such, she could not have obtained her RBT certification by December 2015. Because Respondent requested the screening, it knew or should have known that Ms. Ferros did not have the requisite work experience and that she was not actually an RBT. The last paid claim for Ms. Ferros was February 2, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Ferros had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period, or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Teresita Rodriguez The application for Teresita Rodriguez, dated August 10, 2017, lists two jobs as an HHA-BA,4 one with Gifted Health Group, Inc. (“Gifted”), from January 2010 to February 2014, and the other with Nory’s Home Services, Inc. (“Nory’s”), from February 2014 to April 2015. There is no indication of how long Ms. Rodriguez worked in the capacity of an HHA versus as a BA at either job. There is no indication of work with the target population in the HHA job at Gifted or Nory’s. The application also listed work as an HHA at Homecare for Neighborhood Home Health (“Neighborhood”) from April 2015 to “actual” (presumably, the date of the application, August 10, 2017). There is no mention of work with the target population in the job with Neighborhood. The resume for Ms. Rodriguez, lists the same jobs listed on the application; however, the work with Neighborhood is listed on the resume as HHA-BA, and not HHA Homecare. The resume provides more description for each job, and only the job at Gifted describes work with the target population. Documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contain a background screening requested by Respondent. The screening indicates that Ms. Rodriguez was not eligible to work with the target population until September 2015. Based on the screening, Ms. Rodriguez could not have worked with the target population at Nory’s, Neighborhood, or Gifted before then. Because Respondent requested the screening, it knew or should have known that Ms. Rodriguez did not have the requisite work experience. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained an undated letter of reference from Josie Vallejo. That letter does not reference any work with the target population but specifically mentions work with Ms. Vallejo’s mother, a senior, although it does not provide any dates. The letter mentioned that Ms. Vallejo had been a friend of Ms. Rodriguez for six years. 4 Presumably, “HHA” as used in applications and on resumes of rendering providers stands for Home Health Aide. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contain an undated letter of reference from Danitza Montero. The letter from Ms. Montero states Ms. Rodriguez cared for Ms. Montero’s son, but does not indicate the son was a member of the target population. Ms. Rodriguez began working for Respondent on December 26, 2017. There is no documentation indicating that Ms. Rodriguez worked for Gifted past August 10, 2017. The last paid claim for Ms. Rodriguez was March 17, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Rodriguez had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period, or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Xochilt Povsic The application for Xochilt Povsic, dated January 31, 2017, states she worked as a membership coordinator for Sam’s Club, and a dietary aide at Bentley Commons at Paragon Village in New Jersey. There is no indication of work with the target population at either job, and the nature of those jobs would not contribute to the requisite work experience. Overlapping the dietary aide job, on her application Ms. Povsic also indicates work as a BA at two private practice/personal care jobs. Ms. Povsic states she worked for Maria Mora from August 2013 to June 2015 and that she worked for Miriam Ponzano from September 2014 to December 2015. The resume for Ms. Povsic listed the same jobs and dates as listed on the application and also listed another dietary aide job with Fellowship Village in New Jersey. The resume contains descriptions of the type of work performed at each job. There is no mention of work with the target population at either dietary aide job or in the job at Sam’s Club, and those jobs would not be of the type to contribute to the requisite work experience. The work for Ms. Mora was described by Ms. Povsic as providing BA services from August 2013 to June 2015 to a “3-4 [year old child]” with autism, ADHD, and behavior disorders. The work for Ms. Ponzano was described by Ms. Povsic as providing BA services from September 2014 to December 2015 to twin boys, “1-2 years old” with behavior disorders and ADHD. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a letter from Miriam Ponzano that is not dated and was provided to AHCA post-PAR. While Ms. Ponzano confirms that Ms. Povsic cared for her boys, there is no indication that the children were part of the target population or that any work performed contributed to the requisite work experience. In addition, the dates of service listed by Ms. Ponzano conflict with the dates listed by Ms. Povsic. Ms. Ponzano indicated the Ms. Povsic cared for her sons from November 2015 to March 2016, not September 2014 to December 2015, as had been asserted by Ms. Povsic on her application and resume. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent also contained a letter from Maria Mora, that is not dated, and was provided to AHCA post- PAR. Ms. Mora did not confirm that Ms. Povsic had cared for her 3 to 4-year- old son with autism, ADHD, and behavior disorders, as Ms. Povsic had indicated. Rather, Ms. Mora’s letter indicates that Ms. Povsic was her caretaker, performing personal tasks such as picking up medicines and buying groceries. Ms. Mora does not indicate that she is part of the target population and the services listed are not of the type to contribute to the requisite work experience. In addition, the dates of service listed by Ms. Mora conflict with the dates listed by Ms. Povsic. Ms. Mora indicates that Ms. Povsic cared for her during the winter of 2014 to 2015 (even mentioning that Ms. Povsic shoveled snow for her), not August 2013 to June 2015, as had been indicated by Ms. Povsic on her application and resume. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a letter from Maydelis Cruz. The letter is not dated and was provided to AHCA post- PAR. Ms. Cruz indicates she has known Ms. Povsic for 20 years. Ms. Cruz indicates that Ms. Povsic assisted with her son, who has Down Syndrome, from November 2011 to March 2013. Ms. Povsic would only have been 17 years old at that time. The last paid claim for Ms. Povsic was March 17, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Xochilt Povsic had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period, or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Yaima Alvarez The application for Yaima Alvarez, dated August 10, 2017, listed two overlapping HHA jobs: “Faith,” from July 2016 to “present” (presumably August 10, 2017, the date of the application); and Home Health Solutions, from June 2017 to present (August 10, 2017). There is no indication of work with the target population for either job. The resume for Ms. Alvarez lists no work experience, but has listings under “Professional Affiliations” that appear to be a work history. Faith Health Care, Inc., is listed with dates that correspond to the listing for Faith on the application. There is no mention of a job title or work with the target population regarding Faith Health Care, Inc. Solutions Group, Inc., is also listed under “Professional Affiliations.” As with Faith Health Care, Inc., there is no mention of her job title or work with the target population. That listing does not appear to be the same job that is listed as Home Health Solutions on the resume as the dates do not correspond. There is no indication of work with the target population for Faith Health Care, Inc., or Solutions Group, Inc. There is also a listing for “L.G. (R.B.T. patient).” However, as indicated before, Respondent stipulated that none of the rendering providers at issue obtained an RBT by January 1, 2019. Ms. Alvarez began working for Respondent on December 12, 2017. The last paid claim for Ms. Alvarez was February 8, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Alvarez had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Yudisley Garces The application for Yudisley Garces, dated April 20, 2017, lists overlapping CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) jobs. One was with AAA Home Health Service (“AAA”) from June 2014 to today (April 20, 2017) and the other is with Alma Care, Inc. (“Alma Care”), from August 2015 to “today” (presumably the date of the application, April 20, 2017). There is no indication of work with the target population for either job. The resume for Ms. Garces only lists the job for AAA. However, the dates listed on the resume for that job (beginning June 2014) conflict with the dates listed on the application (beginning February 2014). There is no indication of work with the target population associated with that job. The resume also listed two jobs (one at a hospital in Cuba and the other at a hospital in Venezuela) performing puncture aspiration biopsies and cervical cancer diagnoses. There is no mention of work with the target population at either of those hospital jobs, and those jobs would not be of the type to contribute to the requisite work experience. The last paid claim for Ms. Garces was March 17, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Garces had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period, or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Zerelys Lauzerique The resume for Zerelys Lauzerique lists work with “Lenin & Daughter” and Ignite Christian Academy (“Ignite”). There is no indication of work with the target population regarding the job at Ignite. It also lists work as a fitness coach with Beach Body, as a Youth Pastor at Cross Church, and as an Assistant Director at Flames of Fire Bible School (“Flames of Fire”), that is not listed on the application. The Beach Body work overlaps the BA work with Lenin & Daughter. There is no indication of working with the target population associated with the jobs at Beach Body, Cross Church, or Flames of Fire, and those jobs would not be of the type to contribute to the requisite work experience. The application for Ms. Lauzerique, dated December 4, 2017, lists work as a BA with Lenin & Daughter from December 2016 to “current” (presumably the date of the application, December 4, 2017) and as a Teacher Assistant with Ignite from August 2014 to August 2015. There is no mention of work with the target population regarding the job at Ignite. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a letter of reference dated December 5, 2016, from Melanie Reyes, a “close friend.” The letter from Ms. Reyes does not indicate any work with the target population and instead pertains to Ms. Lauzerique’s work at Beach Body. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent also contained a letter of reference dated December 2016 from Reverend Abram Gomez of Cross Church. The letter indicates that he worked with Ms. Lauzerique for two years, but does not indicate any work with the target population. Ms. Lauzerique began working for Respondent on December 11, 2017. The last paid claim for Ms. Lauzerique was January 6, 2018. The documents submitted by Respondent to AHCA for Ms. Lauzerique contained training certificates for both the 20-hour BA course and the 40-hour RBT course. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Lauzerique had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period, or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period. Respondent's Response The owner of Hour Bliss, Inc., Mr. Perez-Delgado, testified on behalf of Respondent. He is a Board-Certified Behavior Analyst, has a master’s certification in addiction, and is a Licensed Mental Health Counselor. Mr. Perez-Delgado testified that Respondent served populations in Miami that no other company would because of the crime. Mr. Perez-Delgado said that when he enrolled Respondent as a BA provider, many of the rendering providers he hired had worked at other companies where he had also worked, and because of this, he believed they met the qualifications required to serve as BAs. Mr. Perez-Delgado testified that he provided records he thought were relevant to the Medicaid investigation beginning in August 2017, and again in January 2018 and April 2019. If there had been a problem, he would have liked AHCA to institute a corrective action plan. However, he alleges the next communication from AHCA was terminating his Medicaid provider number without cause. Later, he received notice of the audit. Much of the testimony from Mr. Perez-Delgado concerned events that occurred prior to the audit beginning in November 2018, and the issuance of the PAR and FAR in 2019. These events are obviously related to the pre-payment review or other matters with AHCA, and not the audit. Mr. Perez-Delgado testified that several of his rendering providers were parents of children with autism or ADHD. Accordingly, they had more than the requisite experience with the target population. However, he did not document that in the files provided to the Agency. Nor did he timely provide records demonstrating that these same workers met the training requirement. Mr. Perez-Delgado offered no information regarding how or whether he verified prior work experience of these BAs in question. ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT In this case, AHCA presented credible, persuasive evidence establishing that the audit giving rise to this proceeding was properly conducted. AHCA obtained and reviewed records from Respondent, issued a PAR, reviewed additional records submitted after the PAR, issued the FAR, and even then continued to review records and consider evidenced that, by giving Respondent the benefit of the doubt whenever possible, further reduced the overpayment. In this audit, AHCA examined the records provided by Respondent to determine if it maintained business records and Medicaid-related records establishing that its rendering providers met the qualifications set forth in the BA Handbook. The BA Handbook required no special documentation. Respondent, as are all providers who contract to provide Medicaid services, was required to keep contemporaneous records regarding entitlement to payment, including employment eligibility, and compliance with all Medicaid rules, regulations, handbooks, and policies. Respondent failed to provide AHCA with documentation that its rendering providers met the qualifications set forth in the BA Handbook. Of the 14 BA providers in dispute, 12 lacked any documentation of the requisite work experience with the target population and meeting the training requirement. Only two BAs, Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Lazerique, met the training requirements, but did not meet the required work experience with the target population.
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 incorporating the terms of this Recommended Order as follows: AHCA overpaid Respondent the sum of $237,802.50 for BA services and Respondent must reimburse the Agency for those payments. AHCA is entitled to an administrative sanction in the amount of $2,500.00. AHCA, as the prevailing party in this proceeding, is entitled to recover, from Respondent, costs including all investigative, legal, and expert witness costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 27th day of April, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Julio Cesar Perez-Delgado Hour Bliss, Inc. Apartment 406 888 Brickell Key Drive Miami, Florida 33131 (eServed) Susan Sapoznikoff, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Kimberly Murray, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Stefan Grow, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Mary C. Mayhew, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Shena L. Grantham, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Room 3407B 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Thomas M. Hoeler, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the Petitioner was overpaid for Medicaid prescriptions. The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA, Agency or Respondent) asserts the Petitioner, Compscript, Inc., d/b/a Compscript (Petitioner or Compscript) failed to maintain proper records to support and document the Medicaid prescription claims paid by the Agency for the audit period. According to the Agency, the audit findings must be extrapolated to the universe of all claims for the audit period. If so, the Agency maintains the Petitioner should reimburse AHCA for a Medicaid overpayment in the amount of $216,974.07 (this is the “recoupment” amount). The Petitioner denies it was overpaid any amount, asserts it kept records in accordance with applicable laws and regulations governing pharmacy records, and maintains that the Agency may not apply the extrapolation accounting procedure in this case.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Petitioner was a licensed pharmacy authorized to do business in the State of Florida; its pharmacy license number is PH0016271. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Petitioner was authorized to provide Medicaid prescriptions pursuant to a provider agreement with the Respondent. The Petitioner’s Medicaid provider number is 106629300. The terms of the provider agreement govern the contractual relationship between this provider and the Agency. The parties do not dispute that the provider agreement together with the pertinent laws or regulations controls the relationship between the provider and the Agency. The provider agreement pertinent to this case is a voluntary agreement between AHCA and the Petitioner. Pursuant to the provider agreement, the Petitioner was to “keep, maintain, and make available in a systematic and orderly manner all medical and Medicaid-related records as AHCA requires for a period of at least five (5) years.” In addition to the foregoing, a Medicaid provider must maintain a patient record for each recipient for whom new or refill prescriptions are dispensed. Any Medicaid providers not in compliance with the Medicaid documentation and record retention policies may be subject to the recoupment of Medicaid payments. A Medicaid provider must retain all medical, fiscal, professional, and business records on all services provided to a Medicaid recipient. The records may be kept on paper, magnetic material, film, or other media. However, in order to qualify for reimbursement, the records must be signed and dated at the time of service, or otherwise attested to as appropriate to the media. Rubber stamp signatures must be initialed. The records must be accessible, legible and comprehensive. Specific to the issues of this case, a Medicaid provider must also retain prescription records for five years. The Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility and authority to administer the Medicaid program in Florida. Pursuant to this authority AHCA conducts audits to assure compliance with the Medicaid provisions and provider agreements. These “integrity” audits are routinely performed and Medicaid providers are aware that they may be audited. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Medicaid program in Florida was governed by a “pay and chase” procedure. Under this procedure, the Agency paid Medicaid claims submitted by Medicaid providers and then, after-the-fact, audited such providers for accuracy and quality control. These “integrity” audits are to assure that the provider maintains records to support the paid claims. In this case, the audit period is May 28, 1999 through July 18, 2000. The pertinent audit has been designated AHCA audit no. 01-0514-000-3/H/KNH and was initiated on October 23, 2000. The Petitioner does not dispute the Agency’s authority to perform audits such as the one at issue. The Petitioner maintains its records are sufficient to support the paid claims and that the Agency has unreasonably imposed its interpretation of the requirements. The Medicaid provider agreement that governs this case required that the Petitioner comply with all Medicaid handbooks in effect during the audit period. Essentially, this standard dictates the records that must be kept for quality control so that the after-the-fact audit can verify the integrity of the Medicaid claims that were paid by the Agency. During the audit period the Petitioner sold or dispensed drugs to Medicaid recipients. Equally undisputed is the fact that Medicaid claims were paid by the Agency during the audit period. Each claim reviewed and at issue in this cause was a paid Medicaid claim subject to the Petitioner’s provider agreement and the pertinent regulations. The Agency required that each and every claim submitted by the Petitioner during the audit period under the Medicaid program be filed electronically. Each claim submitted was filed electronically. Nevertheless, the Agency also required the Petitioner to retain records supporting the claim. Additionally, the Petitioner was to make such supporting records available to the Agency upon request. The Agency asked the Petitioner to present its records to support the claims for the audit period. The disclosure of the records proved difficult for this Medicaid provider because it does not operate in a conventional pharmacy setting. More specifically, it operates solely to serve a nursing home population. All of the patients whose prescriptions were filled were nursing home residents. Compscript maintains its manner of doing business is slightly different from the conventional pharmacy. Rather than the walk-in patient who presents a written prescription to be filled, this Petitioner receives its pharmacy orders by telephone or facsimile transmission from nursing homes. Typically, the staff at Compscript takes the call, writes down the pertinent information, enters the data into the pharmacy’s computer system, and the item is dispensed and routed to the nursing home via the delivery driver. All drugs are dispensed in sealed containers and are delivered with a manifest listing all the medications by name and patient. Given the volume of prescriptions being prepared and delivered, for the audit period at issue in this case, the Petitioner made 2-3 trips to the nursing home per day. Once the information for the prescription was entered into the Petitioner’s computer system, Compscript had little interest in maintaining the written telephone message or the facsimile sheet that generated the request. In some instances the Compscript employee did not make a written record of the prescription request. In those instances the employee entered the request directly into the Petitioner’s computer system and bypassed the written step altogether. The Compscript computer system tracks the initials of the pharmacist who entered the prescription information and cannot be altered without such alteration being tracked and noted. Since the pharmacy fills “over the counter” items, as well as controlled and non-controlled pharmacy products, the computer record denotes that information along with the patient information. When the Respondent’s audit agents went into the Compscript facility to audit the Medicaid claims, the Petitioner could not readily produce the written documentation to support the dispensed drugs. In fact, many of the records that verified the prescriptions dispensed were found on the nursing home records. The nursing home patient’s physician order sheet specified the item or items requested for the patient. This “physician order sheet” (POS) should theoretically always support the dispensing of the product from the Petitioner. In this case there were instances when the POS did not corroborate the claim. When the auditors from the Agency presented at Compscript, the Petitioner did not have the POS records to produce. Obviously, those records were maintained within the nursing home. Additionally, Compscript did not have the telephone notes or the facsimile transmission sheets to support items dispensed during the audit period. When the hearing in this cause proceeded it was also discovered that records that were generated daily by the Petitioner’s computer system that would have corroborated the claims (and which were allegedly maintained in storage) were not produced or available to support Medicaid claims submitted during the audit period. During the audit the Agency’s auditors requested records from a random sample of the claims submitted during the audit period. The results from that sample where then applied to the universe of claims for the audit period. When this mathematical calculation was performed the audit produced a Medicaid overpayment in the amount of $1,341,466.27. Afterwards, when the Petitioner was able to locate additional records to correspond to and support the prescriptions dispensed, the amount of overpayment was reduced to $217,715.28 (the amount set forth in the parties’ Pre-hearing Stipulation). At hearing, the Agency maintained that the amount of overpayment was $216,974.07 for which the Petitioner could produce no adequate documentation. At hearing, the Petitioner continued to dispute the procedure of applying the audit sample overpayment to the population of claims to mathematically compute the overpayment for the audit period. This “extrapolation” process was admitted into evidence and has been fully considered in the findings reached in this case. The Petitioner was required to maintain Medicaid- related records for a period of 5 years. Thus, for the audit period in this case, any record supporting the claims should have been maintained and made available for the Agency. Such records would have been within the five-year period. The Agency designates Medicaid compliance to its office of Medicaid Program Integrity. In turn, that office contracted with Heritage Information Systems, Inc. (Heritage) to perform and report pharmacy audits of the numerous pharmacy providers within the state. Auditors from Heritage were assigned the Compscript audit. At the time of the audit the Heritage auditors were not privy to any of the POS documents later produced in the case. Ken Yon is the Agency’s administrator who was responsible for managing the instant case and who worked with the Heritage auditors to assure the policies and practices of the Agency were met. In this case, the Heritage auditors presented at Compscript unannounced on October 23, 2000, and sought 250 randomly selected claims for review. By limiting the number of claims, the auditors were not required to sift through the records of 46,000+ claims (the approximate number of claims that the Petitioner submitted during the audit period). For the universe of 46,000+ claims, 250 randomly selected claims is a reasonable sample to audit. The adequacy of the sample number as well as the manner in which it was generated is supported by the weight of credible evidence presented in this matter. Also, the results of a sample of 250 from the universe of 46,000+ would be statistically valid if randomly chosen as they were in this case. In this regard the testimony of Dr. Mark Johnson, an expert in statistical sampling and analysis, has been deemed credible and persuasive as to the issues of the appropriateness of the sample (as to size and how it was generated), the use of the sample overpayment to calculate an overall payment, and the statistical trustworthiness of the amounts claimed in this cause. If anything, as Dr. Johnson asserted, the actual overpayment would be greater than the recoupment amount sought by the Agency. The Agency has used a statistical extrapolation method to compute overpayments for years. The statistical concept and process of applying a sample to a universe to mathematically compute an overpayment is not novel to this case. After the auditors completed their review of the records at the Compscript pharmacy, Kathryn Holland, a licensed pharmacist (who is also a consulting pharmacist) prepared the Respondent’s Final Agency Audit Report. Prior to completing the report, Ms. Holland received and reviewed the information provided by the Petitioner through the auditors. As a result of the review, a number of “can’t find” conclusions were reached. By “can’t find” the auditors and Ms. Holland meant that the original prescription or refill documentation could not be located for the paid Medicaid claim. These “can’t find” claims were reported to the Petitioner, who was given additional time to locate and produce documents to support the claims. In fact, the Agency continued to accept documentation for claims up through the time of hearing. Consequently, the amount sought for overpayment has been substantially reduced. Whether the Agency had the authority to accept documents outside the prescription records maintained by the pharmacy is not an issue. In fact, the Agency did reduce the overpayment amount when subsequent supporting documents were located. A second error in the documentation for the Petitioner’s prescriptions was noted as “no doctor’s address on the prescription.” That expression meant that pursuant to state and federal law the physician’s address is required for a controlled substance and when it was not provided the auditor deemed the documentation incomplete. Although the Petitioner maintained doctor addresses in its computer system, the records did not correspond to the specific prescriptions that were filled for the audited claims. In order to stand as a sufficient prescription form, a writing must be created contemporaneous to the order (phone requests that are transcribed are acceptable), must contain specific information (type of drug, strength, dose, patient, doctor, DEA number, refill, etc.), and it must be kept for the requisite time. It would be acceptable for the prescription to be computer generated so long as it was written contemporaneous to the order and preserved as required by law. In this case, at the conclusion of the audit, the Agency identified 194 discrepant claims within the random sample of 250. The vast majority of those discrepancies were noted as “can’t find.” Had the Agency not accepted other documentation to support the dispensing of the drugs, the calculated overpayment would have been $1,575,707.44. Applying a lower confidence limit of 95 percent to that amount generated the calculated overpayment of $1,341,466.27. The audit findings set forth in the Agency’s Final Agency Audit Report (dated April 6, 2001) is supported by the weight of credible evidence in this case. Nevertheless, the Agency did allow the provider here to supplement the documentation disclosed during the audit. And, to that end, the calculated overpayment was reduced to $216,974.07 (this amount is 95% of the calculated overpayment). In reality, the amount owed by this Petitioner for failure to maintain proper documentation for this audit would be greater than the recoupment amount sought by the Agency. Had the Agency held the Petitioner to a standard of “no prescription, no payment” standard arguably 194 of the 250 audited claims could have been disallowed. That is not the standard applied by the Agency. A “patient record” may include information regarding the patient’s prescription history. The terms “patient record” and “prescription” are not synonymous. For example, while a prescription would contain information such as patient's name, doctor, DEA number, doctor's address, dosage, drug, and whether it may be refilled, it would be expected that the “patient record” would contain additional information not typically found on a prescription. For instance, a “patient record” might contain a historical track of past medications or known patient allergies. In this case, the computer records or “patient records” maintained by the Petitioner did not retain the prescriptions in the format dictated by rule. An electronic imaging recording system may be used when the system captures, stores, and can reproduce the exact image of the prescription, including the reverse side of the prescription if necessary. The Petitioner’s system did not do that. An electronic system must be able to produce a daily hard-copy printout of all original prescriptions dispensed and refilled. If the Petitioner’s system could do that, it did not. An acceptable electronic system must generate the prescription contemporaneous to the dispensing order. The Petitioner’s system did not do that. The Agency has not alleged, and there is no evidence to suggest, fraud in the Petitioner’s failure to maintain its records. The Agency’s interpretation of the requirement that a prescription be reduced to writing is consistent with the rules and regulations in effect at the time of this audit. The last category of discrepant items was “UR” which stood for “unauthorized refills.” These were claims for refills on drugs for which the original prescription could not be located or documentation from the nursing home could not be found. Again, the Petitioner the maintained that within the nursing home setting a physician’s reorder for medications for the patient could be found on the POS. These refill requests were handled orally among the physician, the nursing home staff, and the pharmacy. Nevertheless, because they were not documented in writing the Agency disallowed this claims and included them among the discrepant list. If the Petitioner was able to produce a physician order to support the UR claims, it was removed from the recoupment list. In most instances, the Petitioner did not have the requisite paperwork to support the refill. Instead, the Petitioner relied on its computer records (again not kept in accordance with the applicable standards) to support the UR claims. The Agency has not claimed that the refills were not dispensed, merely that the paperwork to support the claim cannot be produced.
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 that accepts an amended Final Agency Action Report to support an overpayment and recoupment against the Petitioner in the amount of $216,974.07. S DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 L. William Porter, II, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Executive Center III 2727 Mahan Drive, Building 3, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Kenneth W. Sukhia, Esquire Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1090 Post Office Box 11240 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ralph E. Breitfeller, Esquire McGrath & Breitfeller, LLP 140 East Town Street, Suite 1070 Columbus, Ohio 43215
