The Issue Whether Petitioner was overpaid for those Medicaid claims which, according to the post-hearing submissions of the parties, remain in dispute.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Jay's Medical Center Jay's Medical Center (hereinafter referred to as "JMC") is a medical clinic located in a low income area in Miami. It is staffed by three physicians, including Shelley Wolland, D.O., the clinic's Medical Director, 6/ and several support staff. In general, the community JMC serves is poorly educated and has a relatively high incidence of medical problems. Approximately 7,000 members of the community receive medical services at JMC, with anywhere from 40 to 80 patients receiving services in a single day. Many of the clinic's patients are Medicaid recipients. The Provider Agreement JMC is now, and has been since May of 1990, when it entered into a Non- Institutional Professional and Technical Medicaid Provider Agreement with the Department, authorized to provide physician services, EPSDT (Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment) services, and family planning services to its Medicaid patients eligible to receive such services. The provider agreement between JMC and the Department provided as follows: The provider agrees that services will be provided to recipients of the Florida Medicaid Program without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, or handicap. The provider agrees to keep for 5 years complete and accurate medical and fiscal records that fully justify and disclose the extent of the services rendered and billing made under the Medicaid program and agrees to furnish the State Agency and Medicaid Fraud Control unit upon request such information regarding any payments claimed for providing these services. Access to the pertinent patient records and facilities by authorized Medicaid program representatives will be permitted upon reasonable request. All records relating to Medicaid recipients are to be held confidential as provided under 42 CFR 431.305 and 306. The provider agrees that services or goods billed to the Medicaid program must be medically necessary, Medicaid compensable and of quality comparable to those furnished by the provider's peers, and the services or goods must have been actually provided to eligible Medicaid recipients by the provider prior to submitting a claim. The provider agrees to submit Medicaid claims in accordance with program policies and that payment by the program for services rendered will be based on the payment methodology in the applicable Florida Administrative Rule. The provider in executing this agreement acknowledges that he understands that payment of Florida Medicaid claims is made from Federal and State funds and that any falsification, or concealment of a material fact, may be prosecuted under Federal and State laws. The providers of Independent Laboratory, Portable X-Ray Services, Home Health Services, Hospice and Rural Health Clinic Services agree to furnish the Office of Licensure and Certifi- cation a completed copy of Form HCFA-1513 (Ownership and Control Interest Disclosure Statement) in accordance with 42 CFR 455.104. The providers of Prescribed Drug Services agree to bill the Medicaid program no more than usual and customary charges and on request, to provide access to usual and customary pricing information. The Department agrees to notify the provider of any major changes in Federal or State rules and regulations relating to Medicaid. Payment made by the State Agency shall constitute full payment for services rendered to recipients under the Medicaid program. This includes situations when no payment is made to physicians when Medicare coinsurance claims are adjudicated due to Medicaid's payment methodology. The only exception is in specific programs when Medicaid coinsurance is required from the recipient. The provider and the Department agree to abide by the Florida Administrative Code, Florida Statutes, policies, procedures, manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program and Federal laws and regulations. The agreement may be terminated upon thirty days written notice by either party. The Department may terminate this agreement in accordance with Chapter 120, F.S. This agreement becomes effective the date the signature of the authorized agent of the Office of Medicaid is affixed. The provider eligibility will be established at the latter of the date of licensure of the provider, if applicable, or ninety (90) days prior to receipt of the application. The provider shall be responsible for assuring that the signature on the claim form is appropriate for authorization. Persons authorized to submit Medicaid claims on behalf of the provider shall be limited to the provider, the provider's employees or authorized agent. Handbook Provisions Among the "manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program" referenced in paragraph 8. of the provider agreement was the Medicaid Physician Provider Handbook (hereinafter referred to as the "MPP Handbook"). Chapter 10 of the MPP Handbook addressed the subject of "provider participation." Section 10.9 of this chapter provided as follows: RECORD KEEPING You must retain physician records on services provided to each Medicaid recipient. You must also keep financial records. Keep the records for five (5) years from the date of service. Examples of the types of Medicaid records that must be retained are: Medicaid claim forms and any documents that are attached, treatment plans, prior authorization information, any third party claim information, x-rays, fiscal records, and copies of sterilization and hysterectomy consents. Medical records must contain the extent of services provided. The following is a list of minimum requirements: history, physical examination, chief complaint on each visit, diagnostic tests and results, diagnosis, a dated, signed physician order for each service rendered, treatment plan, including prescriptions for medications, supplies, scheduling frequency for follow-up or other services, signature of physician on each visit, date of service, anesthesia records, surgery records, copies of hospital and/or emergency records that fully disclose services, and referrals to other services. If time is a part of the procedure code prescription being billed, then duration of visit shown by begin time and end time must be included in the record. Authorized state and federal staff or their authorized representatives may audit your Medicaid records. You may convert your paper records to microfilm or microfiche. However, your microfilm or microfiche must be legible when printed and viewed. Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook addressed the subject of "covered services and limitations." Section 11.1 of this chapter provided as follows: INTRODUCTION The physician services program pays for services performed by a licensed physician or osteopath within the scope of the practice of medicine or osteopathy as defined by state law. The services of this program must be performed for medical necessity for diagnosis and treatment of an illness on an eligible Medicaid recipient. Delivery of the services in this manual must be done by or under the personal supervision of a physician or osteopath at any place of service. Personal supervision is defined as the physician being in the building when the service was rendered. The physician must sign and date the medical record either on the date of service or within 24 hours. Each service type listed has special policy requirements that apply specifically to it. These must be adhered to for payment. HCPCS CODES and ICD-9-CM CODES Procedure codes listed in Chapter 12 are HCPCS (Health Care Financing Administration Common Procedure Coding System) codes. These are based on the Physician's Current Procedural Terminology, Fourth Edition. Determine which procedure describes the service rendered and enter that code and description on your claim form. HCPCS codes described as "unlisted" are used when there is no procedure among those listed that describes the service rendered. Physician's Current Procedural Terminology, Fourth Edition, Copyright 1977, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 by the American Medical Association (CPT-4) is a listing of descriptive terms and numeric identifying codes and modifiers for reporting medical services and procedures performed by physicians. The Health Care Financing Administration Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) includes CPT-4 descriptive terms and numeric identifying codes and modifiers for reporting medical services and procedures and other materials contained in CPT-4 which are copyrighted by the American Medical Association. The Diagnosis Codes to be used are found in the International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition, Clinical Modifications (ICD-9-CM). A diagnosis code is required on all physician claims. Use the most specific code available. Fourth and fifth digits are required when available. There are six levels of service associated with the visit procedure codes. They require varying skills, effort, responsibility, and medical knowledge to complete the examination, evaluation, diagnosis, treatment and conference with the recipient about his illness or promotion of optimal health. These levels are: . Minimal is a level of service supervised by a physician. . Brief is a level of service pertaining to the evaluation and treatment of a condition requiring only an abbreviated history and exam. . Limited is a level of service used to evaluate a circumscribed acute illness or to periodically reevaluate a problem including a history and examination, review of effectiveness of past medical management, the ordering and evaluation of appropriate diagnostic tests, the adjustments of therapeutic management as indicated and discus- sion of findings. . Intermediate level of service pertains to the evaluation of a new or existing condition compli- cated with a new diagnostic or management problem, not necessarily related to the primary diagnosis, that necessitates the obtaining of pertinent history and physical or mental status findings, diagnostic tests and procedures, and ordering appropriate therapeutic management; or a formal patient, family or a hospital staff conference regarding the patient's medical management and progress. . Extended level of service requires an unusual amount of effort or judgment including a detailed history, review of medical records, examination, and a formal conference with the patient, family, or staff; or a comparable medical diagnostic and/or therapeutic service. . Comprehensive level of service provides for an in-depth evaluation of a patient with a new or existing problem requiring the development or complete reevaluation of medical data. This service includes the recording of a chief complaint, present illness, family history, past medical history, personal review, system review, complete physical examination, and ordering appropriate tests and procedures. 7/ Section 11.2 of Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook provided in part, that "[t]reatment of an illness found by a physician during an EPSDT screening that requires considerable office time (30 minutes or more) to treat, may also be billed as an office visit on the appropriate claim form." Another of the "manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program" referenced in paragraph 8. of the provider agreement between JMC and the Department was the Medicaid EPSDT Provider Handbook (hereinafter referred to as the "EPSDT Handbook"). Chapter 10 of the EPSDT Handbook addressed the subject of "provider participation." Section 10.8 of this chapter provided as follows: RECORD KEEPING You must retain EPSDT records on services provided to each Medicaid recipient. You must also keep financial records. Keep the records for five (5) years from the date of service. Examples of the types of Medicaid records that must be retained are: Medicaid claim forms and any documents that are attached, Treatment plans, Prior authorization information, Any third party claim information, X-rays, Fiscal records, and Copies of sterilization and hysterectomy consents. Authorized state and federal staff or their authorized representatives may audit your Medicaid records. You may convert your paper records to microfilm or microfiche. However, your microfilm or microfiche must be legible when printed and viewed. Chapter 11 of the EPSDT Handbook addressed the subject of "covered services and limitations." Sections 11.3 and 11.5 of this chapter provided that the components of an EPSDT preventive health screening examination were: a health and developmental history; unclothed physical assessment or examination; nutritional assessment; updating of routine immunizations, "as indicated by the recipient's age, health history, or population group;" laboratory tests, "as indicated by the recipient's age, health history, or population group;" development assessment, vision, hearing and dental screening; and health education. Section 11.7 of Chapter 11 provided, in part, as follows: Under federal regulations the state must provide for medically necessary treatment services diagnosed as a result of screening. Once the EPSDT recipient is screened and referred for treatment, any further diagnosis and/or treatment is then provided through the individual treatment service program. For example, if an EPSDT recipient is found to have an abnormal laboratory test result, such as tuber- culin (TB) skin test, any further referral, diagnosis and treatment is considered diagnostic treatment under physician services. Billing for a treatment visit at the time of a screening visit is only allowed when the illness is discovered during the screening examination. This treatment visit must be at least 30 minutes or more. Treatment visits completed in conjunction with a screening visit must be billed on the HFCA-1500 and the fact that the visit is screening related must be noted on the claim form. Treatment procedure codes should be related to screening results as noted on the EPSDT 221 claim form. An EPSDT screening should not routinely be completed on an obviously ill child, as the illness may distort the screening results. Sound professional judgment should be exercised in determining the appropriate- ness of screening an ill child. If screening results are questionable, treatment should be provided and the screening appointment rescheduled. If, however, an illness is detected during a screening examination, the screening may be completed and treatment provided on the same date, billing the treatment on the appropriate Medicaid claim form. Billing for treat- ment on the same day as the screening evaluation should be done only when a detected illness or condition requires significant time and procedures in addition to the time usually spent for a screening evaluation. The Audit Commencing in 1992, the Department conducted an audit of Medicaid claims submitted by JMC for services rendered from July 1, 1990, through December 31, 1991. During the course of the audit, the Department examined the files of 40 patients (Patients 1 through 19 and 21 through 41, hereinafter also referred to by their initials) who had received services during the audit period. Patient 1 (S.M.) January 16, 1991, Visit On January 16, 1991, S.M. presented at the clinic complaining of a sore throat and fever. The attending physician determined that S.M. had an upper respiratory tract infection, as well as vaginitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this as a "comprehensive" visit (procedure code 90020) and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one (procedure code 90060), as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. January 29, 1991, Visit S.M. next visited the clinic on January 29, 1991. JMC billed this visit as a "limited" one (procedure code 90050) and payment was made accordingly. Respondent does not dispute the appropriateness of such billing and payment. 8/ April 23, 1991, Visit On April 23, 1991, S.M. presented at the clinic complaining of blood in her urine. She further indicated that she had recently had a Pap smear test, the results of which reflected a possible precancerous condition. A pregnancy test revealed that S.M. was pregnant. She was also diagnosed as having an upper respiratory tract infection, for which she was treated. A gynecological referral was made. JMC billed this visit as a "extended" one (procedure code 90070) and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. October 9, 1991, Visit and Streptococcal Test S.M. visited the clinic again on October 9, 1991. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. It also sought and obtained separate payment for a streptococcal (hereinafter referred to as "strep") test (procedure code 86317) given during the visit. Both parties are now in agreement that the billing and payment for the strep test was appropriate 9/ and that the office visit should have been billed and paid, not as an "extended" visit, but as an "intermediate" visit, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. November 6, 1991, Visit Cerumen Removal and Strep Test On November 6, 1991, S.M. presented at the clinic complaining of sinus problems and pustules on her nose. She was diagnosed as having folliculitis, pharyngitis and sinusitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. It also sought and obtained separate payment for impacted cerumen removal (procedure code 69210) and a strep test. The parties are in agreement that the billings and payments for the impacted cerumen removal and strep test were appropriate. 10/ A dispute still exists, however, as to the appropriateness of JMC billing and receiving payment for an "extended" visit. JMC's medical records pertaining to the visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was not an "extended" visit, but was merely an "intermediate" visit, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. Moreover, these records were not signed by the attending physician "on the date of service or within 24 hours," as required by Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. 11/ Accordingly, JMC should not have received any payment for this office visit. Patient 2 (O.R.) October 7, 1991, Billings JMC billed and was paid for a "comprehensive" visit and other services (procedure codes 86317, 94010 and 94664) it claimed it rendered Patient 2, O.R., on October 7, 1991, but the medical records maintained by JMC, to the extent that they are legible, do not document that, on that date, O.R. was seen at the clinic by a physician or that she received the other billed for services. Accordingly, payment should not have been made to Petitioner for an office visit of any type or for any of the other services Petitioner claimed it rendered O.R. on October 7, 1991. October 22, 1991, Visit On October 22, 1991, O.R. presented at the clinic with a fever, sore throat and high blood pressure. In addition, she complained that she was wheezing, suffering from headaches and had a runny nose. At the time of the visit, O.R. was five feet, two inches tall and weighed 206 pounds. The attending physician determined that O.R. was suffering from asthma. Using a nebulizer, he treated her with Ventolin. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. October 24, 1991, Visit, Routine Venipuncture and Therapeutic Injection O.R. returned to the clinic two days later, on October 24, 1991, with respiratory problems. She was coughing and wheezing severely. Her throat was red. The attending physician determined that O.R. had pharyngitis, pneumonia and severe asthma. Treatment was provided. Medications were prescribed and oral instructions regarding medication administration and compliance were given. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was, as JMC claimed, an "extended" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC also sought and obtained separate payment for a routine venipuncture (procedure code 36415) and a therapeutic injection for asthma (procedure code 90782). The parties are in agreement that the routine venipuncture was appropriately billed and paid. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a therapeutic injection, however, is still in dispute. JMC's medical records, to the extent that they are legible, do not document that O.R. was given the billed and paid-for therapeutic injection on October 24, 1991. Accordingly, it should not have been paid for this service. Patient 3 (T.F.) January 31, 1991, Visit On January 31, 1991, Patient 3, T.F., a ten-year old girl who had already begun menstruating, presented at the clinic with complaints of vomiting for the past two days, as well as cramps and abdominal pain. She further indicated that she had had her last menstrual period two weeks previous. A physical examination, which included the genital and rectal areas, was conducted, a history was taken and a strep test was given. The results of the strep test were positive. The attending physician determined that T.F. had strep throat, for which she received treatment. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "extended" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. September 19, 1991, Visit On September 19, 1991, T.F. presented at the clinic complaining of a high fever and a sore throat. She further indicated that she had vomited earlier in the morning. A physical examination, which did not include the genital area, was conducted, an updated history was taken and a strep test was given. The attending physician determined that T.F. had tonsillitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 4 (K.W.) October 3, 1991, Visit On October 3, 1991, Patient 4, K.W., presented at the clinic. He had lower back pain, an upper respiratory tract infection, trauma to his right ankle and folliculitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. November 4, 1991, Billings JMC billed and was paid for an "extended" visit and another service (procedure code 86317) it claimed it rendered K.W. on November 4, 1991, but the medical records maintained by JMC do not contain legible, physician-signed and dated documentation substantiating that, on that date, K.W. was seen at the clinic by a physician or that he received the other billed-for service. Accordingly, payment should not have been made to Petitioner for any type of office visit or for the other service Petitioner claimed it rendered K.W. on November 4, 1991. Patient 5 (S.W.) October 19, 1990, Visit JMC billed and was paid for a "comprehensive" office visit, in addition to an EPSDT screen (procedure code W9881), for services rendered to Patient 5, S.W., on October 19, 1990. The parties are in agreement that the EPSDT screen was appropriately billed and paid. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, is still in dispute. The medical records maintained by JMC do not contain legible, physician-signed and dated documentation justifying JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. October 29, 1990, Visit S.W. again visited the clinic on October 29, 1990. This was a follow- up visit. She had been to the clinic four days previous with a high fever and complaining of a headache, stuffiness and a cough. JMC billed S.W.'s October 29, 1990, visit as an "intermediate" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. May 14, 1991, Visit On May 14, 1991, S.W. presented at the clinic complaining of a cough. She was diagnosed as having an upper respiratory tract infection. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. May 29, 1991, Visit Two weeks later, on May 29, 1991, S.W. returned to the clinic for a follow-up visit. She was still coughing. Tests taken before the visit revealed that, in addition to her respiratory problems, S.W. was suffering from iron deficiency. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. June 12, 1991, Visit On June 12, 1991, S.W. paid another follow-up visit to the clinic. During the visit, she admitted that she had not taken her medication "properly." A spirometry test taken before the visit revealed "severe obstruction." Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 6 (B.F.) July 12, 1990, Visit On July 12, 1990, Patient 6, B.F., a 32-year old woman, presented at the clinic complaining of chest palpitations and abdominal pain. A physical examination, which included an examination of the vaginal and pelvic areas, was conducted, a history was taken, tests were ordered and treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was, as JMC claimed, a "comprehensive" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore not overpaid for this visit. January 14, 1991, Visit B.F. visited the clinic on January 14, 1991, complaining of lower abdominal discomfort, which, she claimed, she had been experiencing for the past two weeks. The attending physician determined that, in addition to the abdominal discomfort B.F. was experiencing, she also had vaginitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. January 28, 1991, Visit On January 28, 1991, B.F. presented at the clinic complaining of general malaise and a cough that she claimed she had had for four or five days. The attending physician determined that B.F. was suffering from acute bronchitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "intermediate" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. April 24, 1991, Visit On April 24, 1991, B.F. presented at the clinic complaining of chest pain, headaches and dizziness she had been experiencing for several days. She also had shortness of breath. A physical examination, which included an examination of the genital and rectal areas, was conducted, an updated history was taken and tests were ordered. The chest pain was determined to be non-cardiac in nature. It was thought to be caused by a tender rib. Medication was prescribed to combat B.F.'s headaches and dizziness. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "extended" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. May 1, 1991, Visit On May 1, 1991, B.F. paid a followup visit to the clinic. She reported that she was still experiencing dizziness, but no longer had any chest pain or headaches. She further advised that she was unable to tolerate the medication that had been prescribed on the previous visit. A rhythm strip test was administered. A new medication was prescribed to combat B.F.'s dizziness. JMC billed this visit as an "intermediate" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 7 (C.C.) July 23, 1991, Visit On July 23, 1991, Patient 7, C.C., visited the clinic for the removal of a lesion from her nose by electrodesiccation. JMC billed this visit as an "intermediate" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 8 (L.F.) October 21, 1991, Visit On October 21, 1991, Patient 8, L.F., presented at the clinic complaining of a skin rash. The attending physician determined that L.F. was suffering from impetigo, as well as bronchitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 9 (L.A.) November 26, 1990, Visit On November 26, 1990, Patient 9, L.A., presented at the clinic complaining of chest pain. JMC billed this visit as an "intermediate" one and payment was made accordingly. The parties now agree that such billing and payment was appropriate and thus JMC was not overpaid for this visit. March 28, 1991, Visit On March 28, 1991, L.A. presented at the clinic complaining of chest and abdominal pain. 152. The attending physician determined that the chest pain was non- cardiac in nature and that L.A. was suffering from gastritis. 153. Medication was prescribed. 154. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. May 6, 1991, Visit On May 6, 1991, L.A. visited the clinic to obtain birth control pills. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "brief" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. June 17, 1991, Visit On June 17, 1991, L.A. presented to the clinic complaining of a sore throat and back pain. The latter ailment was the result of her having been hit in the back with a chair that was thrown at her at work. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. August 8, 1991, Debridement On August 8, 1991, L.A. presented to the clinic complaining of a gash on her left leg that she had received the night before, as well as a headache and continuing back pain. The leg wound was cleaned. Necrotic tissue around the edge of the wound was removed. JMC billed for a debridement (procedure code 11042) and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the billed and paid-for debridement was performed, as claimed by JMC. JMC was therefore appropriately paid for this procedure. September 27, 1991, Visit On September 27, 1991, L.A. presented at the clinic complaining of diarrhea, a cold and postnasal drip. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. October 28, 1991, Visit On October 28, 1991, L.A. presented to the clinic complaining of a sore throat. She further indicated that she had been exposed to the flu. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "intermediate" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 10 (B.W.) February 26, 1991, Visit and EPSDT Screen On February 26, 1991, Patient 10, B.W., who was then twelve years old, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. complaining of an abscess behind her ear and a sore throat. The screen was performed. In addition, B.W.'s abscess was drained and her sore throat was treated. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. 12/ JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that, as claimed by JMC, a complete EPSDT screen, as described in Chapter 11 of the EPSDT Handbook, was performed. The billing and payment for such a screen therefore was appropriate. These medical records, however, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. March 1, 1991, Billing JMC billed and was paid for services rendered B.W. during an "intermediate" office visit it claimed took place on March 1, 1991, but the physician signed-medical records maintained by JMC, to the extent that they are legible, do not document that B.W. was seen that day at the clinic by a physician. Payment for such an office visit therefore should not have been made. March 13, 1991, Visit On March 13, 1991, B.W. presented at the clinic with multiple, yet relatively uncomplicated, medical problems, including iron deficiency. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. June 24, 1991, Visit On June 24, 1991, B.W. presented at the clinic complaining of a skin rash. She also had a slightly elevated temperature. The attending physician determined that B.W had dermatitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. June 27, 1991 Visit Three days later, on June 27, 1991, B.W. again visited the clinic. This time she had an abscess in the area of her left armpit. The abscess was drained. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. 13/ JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. October 18, 1991, Visit and EPSDT Screen On October 18, 1991, B.W. presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen complaining of an abscess in the area of her right armpit and a sore throat. The screen was performed. In addition, B.W.'s abscess was drained and her sore throat was treated. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. 14/ JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that, as claimed by JMC, a complete EPSDT screen, as described in Chapter 11 of the EPSDT Handbook, was performed. The billing and payment for such a screen therefore was appropriate. These medical records, however, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. Patient 11 (T.M.) October 30, 1990, Visit On October 30, 1990, Patient 11, T.M., who was then six years of age, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. The screen was performed. During the screen, a wart was discovered on T.M.'s left wrist. The wart was removed. The procedure took approximately 15 minutes. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. 15/ The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, is still in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. May 9, 1991, Visit T.M. presented at the clinic on May 9, 1991, with an elevated temperature. The attending physician determined that he had an upper respiratory tract infection. Medication was prescribed. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 12 (D.W.) November 30, 1990, Visit On November 30, 1990, Patient 11, D.W., who was then three months old, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. He had a stuffy nose. The screen was performed. The physician performing the screen determined that D.W. was suffering from an upper respiratory tract infection and otitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, is still in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. December 14, 1990, Visit On December 14, 1990, D.W. presented at the clinic. His mother reported that D.W. had a persistent cough. D.W. was given a strep test, the results of which were negative. The attending physician determined that D.W. still had an upper respiratory tract infection and otitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. December 17 and 27, 1990, Visits D.W. visited the clinic on December 17, 1990, and again on December 27, 1990. JMC billed these visits as "intermediate" ones and payments were made accordingly. The parties agree that these billings and payments were appropriate. January 21, 1991, Visit On January 21, 1991, D.W. returned to the clinic with his mother. He had a fever of 102 degrees Fahrenheit, which, his mother reported, he had had for the past four days. Following an examination and a strep test, the attending physician determined that D.W. had a strep throat and an ear infection. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. June 7, 1991, Visit On June 7, 1991, D.W. presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. The screen was performed. During the screen, it was discovered that D.W had an ear problem, for which he received treatment. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, is still in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office on this date. June 21, 1991, Visit 254. D.W. returned to the clinic on June 21, 1991, with an ear infection and a rash behind his right ear. 255. Treatment was provided. 256. JMC billed this visit as an "intermediate" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was, as JMC claimed, an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore not overpaid for this visit. July 23, 1991, Visit On July 23, 1991, D.W. presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. The screen was performed. During the screen, the attending physician determined that D.W. was suffering from diaper rash. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, is still in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. Patient 13 (J.H.) December 29, 1990, Visit and EPSDT Screen On December 29, 1990, J.H., who was then three years of age, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. She was suffering from constipation. During the screen, the attending physician determined that J.H. also had vaginitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, do not document that a complete screen was performed. For example, there is no indication that J.H.'s teeth and gums were examined during the visit. Accordingly, JMC was not entitled to receive any payment for an EPSDT screen. Furthermore, these medical records document that the visit was not a "comprehensive" one, but was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. January 4, 1991, Visit On January 4, 1991, J.H. presented at the clinic. She looked ill and had glassy eyes. It was reported that her temperature (taken with a rectal thermometer) had reached 104 degrees Fahrenheit at home. When her temperature was taken (again rectally) at the clinic, however, it was only 99.2 degrees Fahrenheit. The attending physician determined that J.H. had a urinary tract infection and pharyngitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 14 (J.Y.) April 20, 1991, Visit On April 20, 1991, Patient 14, J.Y., a 25-year old woman suffering from obesity and hypertension, presented at the clinic to obtain a refill of medication that she had been given on a previous visit. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 15 (K.C.) September 20, 1991, Visit On September 20, 1991, Patient 15, K.C., who was then four years of age, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. The screen was performed. During the screen, the attending physician determined that K.C. was suffering from an upper respiratory ailment. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and an "intermediate" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for an "intermediate" office visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. Patient 16 (D.W.) December 17, 1991, Visit On December 17, 1991, Patient 16, D.W., who was then eight years of age, presented to the clinic for an EPSDT screen. During the screen, the attending physician determined that D.W. was suffering from dermatitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and an "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen lacks adequate supporting documentation. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was not a "comprehensive" one, but was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 17 (R.G.) There are no issues in dispute concerning any billings and payments made in connection with services JMC rendered to Patient 17, R.G. Patient 18 (C.F.) February 12, 1991, Visit On February 12, 1991, C.F., a 25-year old woman, presented at the clinic complaining of profuse menstrual bleeding. The attending physician determined that C.F. was simply having irregular menstrual periods and that medical intervention was not warranted. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. November 18, 1991, Visit On November 18, 1991, C.F. returned to the clinic. She still had irregular menstrual periods and, in addition, she complained of a heavy discharge of breast milk from both of her breasts. Tests were ordered. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. December 9, 1991, Visit On December 9, 1991, C.F. again visited the clinic. This time she had an upper respiratory tract infection. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 19 (J.R.) September 17, 1990, Visit On September 17, 1990, Patient 19, J.R., who was then six months old, visited the clinic. 16/ He had, what his mother described as, a "bad cold." The attending physician determined that J.R. had an upper respiratory tract infection and bronchitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. January 31, 1991, Visit On January 31, 1991, J.R. presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. The screen was performed. During the screen, the attending physician determined that J.R. was suffering from a rash, a mild upper respiratory ailment, and a sore throat. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and an "extended" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for an "extended" office visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. February 26, 1991, Visit On February 26, 1991, J.R. again visited the clinic. He had an ear infection and diaper rash. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. May 1, 1991, Visit On May 1, 1991, J.R. paid another visit to the clinic. Diaper rash was still a problem. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. May 29, 1991, Visit J.R. returned to the clinic on May 29, 1991. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, do not document that any of JMC's staff physicians provided medically necessary services to J.R. on this date. While these records do reflect that J.R. received an abbreviated physical examination during his visit to the clinic, they do not reveal why the examination was conducted or what conclusions the attending physician reached as a result of the examination. Accordingly, JMC should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. Patient 21 (T.M.) April 26, 1991, Visit On April 26, 1991, Patient 21, T.M., who was then five years of age, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. He had sickle cell anemia, but was doing well. The screen was performed. Following the screen, the attending physician recommended that T.R. continue taking folic acid and vitamins. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. Patient 22 ( K.C.) August 28, 1990, Visit On August 28, 1990, Patient 22, K.C., who was then six months old and had recently been exposed to hepatitis B, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. The screen was performed. The attending physician did not believe that K.C. had contracted hepatitis B. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. Patient 23 ( K.G.) July 10, 1990, Visit On July 10, 1990, Patient 23, K.G., presented at the clinic complaining of a vaginal discharge. The attending physician determined that K.G. was suffering from vaginitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. October 15, 1990, Visit On October 15, 1990, K.G. presented at the clinic complaining of a rash in the area of her groin. The attending physician determined that K.G. had folliculitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "intermediate" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. February 15, 1991, Visit On February 15, 1991, K.G. presented at the clinic complaining of swelling in her legs. 17/ The attending physician determined that she had pinworms. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. March 8, 1991, Visit On March 8, 1991, K.G. presented at the clinic complaining of rectal pain and a persistent cough. The attending physician determined that K.G. had pharyngitis, pneumonia and an anal fissure. Treatment, which included the use of an aerosol spray, was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. 18/ 372. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was, as claimed by JMC, an "extended" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore not overpaid for this visit. June 6, 1991, Visit On June 6, 1991, K.G. visited the clinic complaining of weight gain and pain in her left side. The attending physician determined that the pain was caused by gas and prescribed medication to combat the problem. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. June 28, 1991, Visit On June 28, 1991, K.G. presented at the clinic complaining of a sore throat and a cough producing yellowish sputum. She claimed that she had had the sore throat for three to four days. A strep test was given, the results of which were negative. The attending physician determined that K.G. had bronchitis and pharyngitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. August 1, 1991, Visit On August 1, 1991, K.G. presented at the clinic. 19/ She had a pararectal abscess and a urinary tract infection. The abscess was drained. In addition, treatment was provided for the urinary tract infection. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. 20/ JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. September 5, 1991, Visit On September 5, 1991, K.G. presented at the clinic. She had a cough and sore throat. A strep test was given, the results of which were negative. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 24 (L.W.) December 10, 1990, Visit On December 10, 1990, Patient 24, L.W., who was then five years of age, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. The screen was performed. As part of the screen, her weight was taken. She weighed only 30 pounds. 401. Because she had a persistent cough and a runny nose, a strep test was given, the results of which were positive. 402. JMC billed for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. 403. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. July 2, 1991, Visit On July 2, 1991, L.W. presented at the clinic. 21/ Her right breast was enlarged. In addition, she had pharyngitis and impacted cerumen in her ears. A strep test was given, the results of which were negative. Treatment, which included the removal of the impacted cerumen, was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. 22/ JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 25 (R.W.) October 3, 1991, Visit On October 3, 1991, Patient 25, R.W., who was then four months old, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. 23/ He had an asthmatic condition and bronchitis. The screen was performed. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. 24/ JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. October 10, 1991, Visit On October 10, 1991, R.W. presented at the clinic for another EPSDT screen. His asthma and bronchitis were much improved. The screen was performed. No new problems were discovered. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. 25/ JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. October 16, 1991, Visit On October 16, 1991, R.W. returned to the clinic. His condition had worsened and he was crying in his mother's arms. In addition to the problems he had had previously, he now also had an ear infection. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. October 24, 1991, Visit R.W. paid a follow-up visit to the clinic on October 24, 1991. His condition had improved since his last visit to the clinic on October 16, 1991. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that this visit, like R.W.'s prior visit to the clinic, was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 26 (E.W.) September 16, 1991, Visit On September 16, 1991, Patient 26, E.W., who was then four months old, presented at the clinic with a cold and cough. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen lacks sufficient supporting documentation. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was not a "comprehensive" one, but was merely a "brief" or "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 27 (C.S.) 26/ November 4, 1991, Visit and EPSDT Screen On November 4, 1991, Patient 27, C.S., who was then seven months old, presented at the clinic. She was suffering from a cold. Treatment was provided. JMC billed for an EPSDT screen and an "extended" visit. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, do not document that a complete screen was performed. For example, these records contain no nutritional or developmental assessment, nor do they indicate that there was any health education given. Accordingly, JMC should not have received any payment for an EPSDT screen. Furthermore, these medical records document that the visit was not an "extended" one, but was merely a "brief" or "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 28 (S.S.) 27/ May 15, 1991, Visit On May 15, 1991, Patient 28, S.S., presented at the clinic complaining of keloid skin masses on both of her ears which, she indicated, she wanted removed. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. The parties now agree that the visit should have instead been billed as an "intermediate" one and that therefore JMC was overpaid for this visit. May 29, 1991, Visit On May 29, 1991, S.S. returned to the clinic for evaluation and treatment of her keloids. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. The parties now agree that the visit should have instead been characterized as a "limited" one. In any event, the medical records of this visit were not signed by the attending physician "on the date of service or within 24 hours," as required by Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. Accordingly, payment should not have been made to Petitioner for any level of service rendered S.S. on May 29, 1991. June 12, 1991, Visit On June 12, 1991, S.S. paid another visit to the clinic for further evaluation and treatment of her keloids. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. The parties now agree that the visit should have instead been characterized as a "limited" one. In any event, the medical records of this visit were not signed by the attending physician "on the date of service or within 24 hours," as required by Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. Accordingly, payment should not have been made to Petitioner for any level of service rendered S.S. on June 12, 1991. July 10, 1991, Visit On July 10, 1991, S.S. again visited the clinic for further evaluation and treatment of her keloids. JMC billed this visit as an "intermediate" one and payment was made accordingly. The parties now agree that the visit should have instead been characterized as a "limited" one. In any event, the medical records of this visit were not signed by the attending physician "on the date of service or within 24 hours," as required by Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. Accordingly, payment should not have been made to Petitioner for any level of service rendered S.S. on July 10, 1991. August 7, 1991, Visit S.S. went back to the clinic on August 7, 1991, for further evaluation and treatment of her keloids. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. The parties now agree that the visit should have instead been billed as a "limited" one and that therefore JMC was overpaid for this visit. September 12, 1991, Visit On September 12, 1991, S.S. presented at the clinic for additional evaluation and treatment of her keloids, which were scheduled to be removed the following day. She also had a sore throat. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. The parties now agree that the visit should have instead been billed as a "limited" one and that therefore JMC was overpaid for this visit. September 19, 1991, Visit Only one of the keloids, the one on her left ear, was removed on September 13, 1991. Six days later, on September 19, 1991, S.S. visited the clinic for a postsurgical examination and to discuss the removal of the keloid on her right ear. She presented at the clinic with a sore throat and earache. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. September 26, 1991, Visit S.S. returned to the clinic on September 26, 1991. She had an abscess on her ear. The abscess was incised and drained. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. 28/ JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was not a "comprehensive" one, but was merely a "brief" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. October 7, 1991, Debridement On October 7, 1991, S.S. presented at the clinic complaining of continuing skin problems on and behind her ears. An abscess and "raggedy" skin were discovered. The abscess was incised and drained and the "raggedy" skin was removed. JMC billed and was paid for a debridement. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the billed and paid-for debridement was performed, as claimed by JMC, and that therefore JMC was entitled to the payment it received for the debridement. Patient 29 (T.J.) January 28, 1991, Visit On January 28, 1991, Patient 29, T.J., who was then one month old, was seen at the clinic. She had congenitally deformed ("toe[d] in") feet, multiple insect bites and diaper rash. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. January 30, 1991, Visit T.J. returned to the clinic two days later. She had been vomiting for the past two days. In addition, she had a sore throat and an earache. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. April 22, 1991, Visit On April 22, 1991, T.J. presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. The screen was performed. During the screen, it was determined that T.J. had dermatitis caused by insect bites. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. April 24, 1991, Visit On April 24, 1991, T.J. again visited the clinic. Her dermatitis was still causing her some discomfort. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was not appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was not a "comprehensive" one, but was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 30 (G.D.) March 11, 1991, Visit On March 11, 1991, Patient 30, G.D., who was then four years old, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. The screen was performed. The screen revealed that G.D. had upper respiratory problems, as well as an umbilical hernia. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. April 22, 1991, Visit G.D. was next seen at the clinic on April 22, 1991. He had pharyngitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. June 3, 1991, Visit G.D. next visited the clinic on June 3, 1991. He had a mild upper respiratory tract infection. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 31 (H.C.) October 15, 1990, Visit On October 15, 1990, H.C., who was then 18 years old, presented at the clinic complaining of delayed menstruation. She was given a pregnancy test, the results of which revealed that she was pregnant. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and an "extended" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was not appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for an "extended" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was not an "extended" one, but was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 32 (R.M.) February 12, 1991, Visit On February 12, 1991, Patient 32, R.M., who was then four years old, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. The screen was performed. The screen revealed impacted cerumen in R.M.'s ears. The impacted cerumen was removed. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. 29/ The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. Patient 33 (C.W.) December 3, 1990, Visit On December 3, 1990, Patient 33, C.W., who was then four years old, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. The screen was performed. The screen revealed impacted cerumen in C.W.'s ears and that R.M. had pharyngitis. Treatment, including the removal of the impacted cerumen, was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. 30/ The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. August 22, 1991, Visit 534. On August 22, 1991, C.W. presented at the clinic complaining of a headache. 535. The attending physician determined that C.W. had pharyngitis. 536. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and an "extended" office visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was not appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for an "extended" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was not an "extended" one, but was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. October 7, 1991, Visit On October 7, 1991, C.W. again visited the clinic. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. The parties now agree that the visit should have instead been billed and paid for as a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. October 10, 1991, Visit Three days later, on October 10, 1991, C.W. returned to the clinic. She had tonsillitis, pharyngitis and an upper respiratory infection. Her temperature was 103.4 degrees Fahrenheit. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and an "extended" office visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was not appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for an "extended" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was not an "extended" one, but was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 34 (K.K.) September 19, 1990, Visit On September 19, 1990, Patient 34, K.K., who was then three years old, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. He had a runny nose and a cough. His mother also complained that he was hyperactive. 549. The screen was performed. 550. The screen revealed that K.K. had impacted cerumen in his ears. 551. provided. Treatment, including the removal of the impacted cerumen, was 552. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. 31/ The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. December 17, 1990, Visit On or about December 17, 1990, K.K. returned to the clinic. He had dermatitis, as well as impacted cerumen in his ears. In addition, his mother was concerned about his behavior. Treatment, including the removal of the impacted cerumen, was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. 32/ JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. January 3, 1991, Visit On January 3, 1991, K.K. returned to the clinic for a physical examination for school. During the visit, his mother complained that K.K.'s appetite for food had decreased. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. Patient 35 (T.B.) November 15, 1990, Visit On November 15, 1990, Patient 35, T.B., presented at the clinic for a physical examination for work. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. December 20, 1990, Visit T.B. returned to the clinic on December 20, 1990, complaining that she was not feeling well. During the visit, impacted cerumen was removed from her ears. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. 33/ JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "brief or "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. July 18, 1991, Visit On July 18, 1991, T.B. went to the clinic to obtain "medical certificates." A routine physical examination was performed, but no history was taken. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "brief or "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. December 4, 1991, Visit On December 4, 1991, T.B. presented at the clinic with "pink eye." Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 36 (D.W.) January 2, 1991, Visit On January 2, 1991, Patient 36, D.W., who was then 19 years of age, visited the clinic for a checkup. The attending physician determined that D.W. had an iron deficiency and anemia, for which treatment was provided. During the visit, family planning issues were also addressed. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. April 17, 1991, Visit On April 17, 1991, D.W. presented at the clinic complaining that she had been feeling ill for two days. 34/ 592. A strep test was given, the results of which were negative. The attending physician determined that D.W had tonsillitis and was still suffering from anemia. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. September 16, 1991, Visit On September 16, 1991, D.W. presented at the clinic. She had a sore throat and vaginitis. 35/ In addition, she was now pregnant and still anemic. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and an "extended" visit. 601. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was not appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for an "extended" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was not an "extended" one, but was merely an intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. October 17, 1991, Visit On October 17, 1991, D.W., who was still pregnant at the time, made a follow-up visit to the clinic. She complained of shortness of breath and tightness in her chest, as well as a sore throat. A fetal examination was conducted. A strep test was given, the results of which were negative. The attending physician determined that D.W. had a urinary tract infection, sinusitis, pharyngitis and anemia. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. November 14, 1991, Visit and Echography D.W. returned to the clinic on November 14, 1991. She was in approximately the thirty-second week of her pregnancy and she was still suffering from a urinary tract infection and anemia. Her sinus condition was improving. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. It also sought and received separate payment for an echography (procedure code 76855). The parties now agree that JMC should not have been paid for an echography. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was not a "comprehensive" one, but was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. December 3, 1991, Visit A still-pregnant D.W. visited the clinic again on December 3, 1991, complaining of shortness of breath. The attending physician determined that she was still suffering from a urinary tract infection and anemia. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. December 10, 1991, Visit A week later, on December 10, 1991, with her anticipated date of delivery approaching, D.W. returned to the clinic complaining of vaginal irritation and pain in her left wrist. Her urinary tract infection was improving. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 37 (E.A.) September 27, 1991, Visit On September 27, 1991, Patient 37, E.A., who was then seven weeks old, presented at the clinic with an upper respiratory infection, pharyngitis and thrush. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. October 18, 1991, Visit E.A. returned to the clinic on October 18, 1991, for an EPSDT screen. 633. The screen was performed. The screen revealed that he still had an upper respiratory infection and thrush. Treatment was provided. JMC billed for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. November 20, 1991, Visit E.A. visited the clinic again on November 20, 1991. He had a bad cough and a green discharge from his eyes and nose. The attending physician determined that E.A. had an upper respiratory infection and pharyngitis, as well as a "foreign body" in his nose. Treatment, including the removal of the "foreign body," was provided. 36/ JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was, as claimed by JMC, an "extended" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore entitled to the payment it received for this visit. November 21, 1991, Incision and Removal JMC billed and was paid for an incision and removal of a "foreign body" (procedure code 10120) it claimed had been performed on E.A. at the clinic on November 21, 1991, but the medical records maintained by JMC, to the extent that they are legible, do not document that E.A. received an incision and removal at the clinic on this date. Accordingly, payment should not have been made to JMC for this billed-for service. Patient 38 (O.S.) December 2, 1991, Visit and EPSDT Screen On December 2, 1991, Patient 38, O.S., who was then three months old, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. She had a cold and blotches all over her body and her hair was falling out. The screen revealed that O.S. had tinea capitis, otodynia, and pharyngitis, as well as impacted cerumen in her ears. Treatment, including the removal of the impacted cerumen, was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. 37/ JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, do not document that a complete EPSDT screen was performed. For example, these records contain no developmental assessment, nor do they indicate that there was any health education given. Accordingly, JMC should not have received payment for an EPSDT screen. Furthermore, these medical records document that the visit was not a "comprehensive" one, but was merely an "extended" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. December 9, 1991 O.S. returned to the clinic a week later on December 9, 1991. She had a new rash on her left arm. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 39 (T.G.) September 5, 1991, Visit On September 5, 1991, Patient 39, T.G., who was then three months old, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. She had a stuffy nose and was crying. According to his mother, he had been crying for the past 12 hours. The screen was performed. A strep test was given, the results of which were negative. The attending physician determined that T.G. had an ear infection, an upper respiratory tract infection and phayrngitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, justify JMC billing and receiving payment for, in addition to an EPSDT screen, only an "intermediate" office visit and not a "comprehensive" one. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. September 19, 1991, Visit T.G. returned to the clinic for a follow-up visit on September 19, 1991. He had diaper rash. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 40 (T.B.) November 26, 1991, Visit On November 26, 1991, T.B., a 62-year old man with a history of heart disease, hypertension and stroke, presented at the clinic with a periorbital abscess. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. 38/ JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. November 29, 1991, Visit Three days later, on November 29, 1991, T.B. returned to the clinic again complaining about the abscess. The attending physician reevaluated the problem and referred T.B. to Jackson Memorial Hospital for treatment. JMC billed this visit as an "intermediate" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 41 (L.B.) January 25, 1991, Visit On January 25, 1991, Patient 41, L.B., who was then 19 years of age and had history of mental illness, presented at the clinic stating that she was pregnant and complaining, among other things, of abdominal pain. She appeared to be confused and it was difficult to obtain an accurate history from her. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. April 17, 1991, Visit L.B. returned to the clinic on April 17, 1991, complaining of continuing abdominal pain, vaginal discharge, breast tenderness and nausea. The attending physician determined that L.B. had vaginitis and a urinary tract infection. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. November 25, 1991, Visit L.B. visited the clinic again on November 25, 1991. On this visit she complained of a rash. The attending physician determined that L.B. had dermatitis. 694. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. December 6, 1991, Visit On December 6, 1991, L.B. presented at the clinic claiming that there were things crawling on her scalp. The attending physician determined that L.B. was demented. He filled out a Social Security Administration form indicating that it was his opinion that L.B. was "not medically competent." JMC billed this visit as an "intermediate" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was, as claimed by JMC, an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. Simple Mistake or Fraud? There has been no allegation made, nor proof submitted, that any of the overbillings referenced above were the product of anything other than simple mistake or inadvertence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration adopt the findings made by the Hearing Officer regarding the sampled claims remaining in dispute in the instant case and use these findings to redetermine the total amount of Medicaid overpayments made to Petitioner during the audit period and the amount of the fine Petitioner should be required to pay for its erroneous billings during this period of time. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd of May, 1995. STUART M. LERNER 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 22nd day of May, 1995.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 409.913, Florida Statutes, by failing to retain required Medicaid records, thereby incurring a $10,000 fine according to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-9.070(7)(e).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a Medicaid Provider of Assistive Care Services in Oakland Park, Florida. Annie Mathew is a registered nurse who manages Respondent's facility. Respondent was obligated, pursuant to the Medicaid Provider Agreement executed in June 2008, to comply with applicable Medicaid laws, administrative rules, and Medicaid handbooks. The Agency is the state agency charged with the administration of the Medicaid program in Florida. Within the Agency, the Inspector General ensures the integrity of the Medicaid program by conducting investigations of providers to ensure compliance with all Medicaid rules. On December 7, 2011, the Agency conducted an unannounced on-site inspection of the medical records retained by Respondent. Mr. Cedeno and Ms. Hollis-Stancil conducted the investigation, reviewing ten recipient files. The investigators found that nine of the recipient files did not contain a proper service plan; one recipient did not contain a service plan at all, and had an outdated health assessment. Respondent did not use the Medicaid form found in the Medicaid Assistive Care Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook for service plans; instead, Respondent used a form created by Respondent, which contained some, but not all, of the components addressed in the Medicaid form. The investigators noticed that the facility was clean and in good condition. At the hearing, Respondent admitted to not using the Medicaid form for service plans, and agreed that not all of the components addressed in the Medicaid form were addressed in the form created by Respondent. Specifically, the service plan must contain the expected outcome for the resident, and identify who is going to provide specific services to the resident. Respondent's forms did not reflect this information. As to one recipient, recipient S.V., the file did not contain a current health assessment. The health assessment found in the file had expired in September 2011, three months prior to the inspection in December 2011. All ten counts against Respondent are supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that pursuant to rule 59G-9.070(7)(e), the Agency for Healthcare Administration fine Respondent $10,000 for ten first offense counts of failure to comply with the Medicaid rules. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA E. VARN 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 19th day of March, 2013.
The Issue Whether Medicaid overpayments were made to Petitioner and, if so, what is the total amount of those overpayments.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, including the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation, the following findings s of fact are made: Petitioner and his Practice Petitioner is a general practice physician. He has been licensed to practice medicine in Florida for the past ten years. He is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, in private practice in Miami-Dade County, Florida Petitioner's Participation in the Medicaid Program During the Audit Period, Petitioner was authorized to provide physician services to eligible Medicaid patients. Petitioner provided such services pursuant to a valid provider agreement with AHCA.4 Petitioner's Medicaid provider number was, and remains, 3759873 00 Petitioner billed all of the Medicaid claims that are the subject of the instant controversy under this (individual) provider number. Handbook Provisions As a prerequisite to his entitlement to Medicaid payment for services rendered during the Audit Period, Petitioner was required to comply with, among other things, the provisions of the Physician Coverage and Limitations Handbook (PCL Handbook) then in effect. Medical Necessity Chapter 2 of the PCL Handbook provided that the Medicaid program would reimburse physician providers for services "determined [to be] medically necessary" and not duplicative of another provider's service, and it went on to state as follows: In addition, the services must meet the following criteria: the services must be individualized, specific, consistent with symptoms or confirmed diagnosis of the illness or injury under treatment, and not in excess of the recipient's needs; the services cannot be experimental or investigational; the services must reflect the level of services that can be safely furnished and for which no equally effective and more conservative or less costly treatment is available statewide; and the service must be furnished in a manner not primarily intended for the convenience of the recipient, the recipient's caretaker, or the provider. The fact that a provider has prescribed, recommended, or approved medical or allied care, goods, or services does not, in itself, make such care, goods or services medically necessary or a covered services. Radiology Services Chapter 2 of the PCL Handbook further provided that, "[t]o be reimbursed the maximum fee [or 'global fee'] for a radiology service, the physician must provide both the technical and professional components." A physician provider billing the "global fee" was not authorized, pursuant Chapter 2 of the PCL Handbook, to also seek additional payment for the "professional component" of that fee. Doing so amounted to impermissible "double-billing." Coding Chapter 3 of the PCL Handbook "describe[d] the procedure codes for the services reimbursable by Medicaid that [had to be] used by physicians providing services to eligible recipients." As explained on the first page of this chapter of the handbook: The procedure codes listed in this chapter [were] Health Care Financing Administration Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Levels 1, 2 and 3. These [were] based on the Physician[]s['] Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) book. The CPT include[d] HCPCS descriptive terms and numeric identifying codes and modifiers for reporting services and procedures. . . . The Physicians' Current Procedural Terminology At all times material to the instant case, the American Medical Association's Physicians' Current Procedural Terminology (or the "CPT") referred to in Chapter 3 of the PCL Handbook contained an "[i]ntroduction," which read, in pertinent part, as follows: Current Procedural Terminology, Fourth Edition (CPT) is a systematic listing and coding of procedures and services performed by physicians. Each procedure or service is identified by a five digit code. . . . Inclusion of a descriptor and its associated specific five-digit identifying code number in CPT is generally based upon the procedure being consistent with contemporary medical practice and being performed by many physicians in clinical practice in multiple locations. . . . * * * Section Numbers and Their Sequences Evaluation and Management 99201 to 99499 * * * Surgery 10040 to 69979 Radiology (Including Nuclear Medicine and Diagnostic Ultrasound) 70010 to 79999 Pathology and Laboratory 80002 to 89399 Medicine (except Anesthesiology) 90701 to 99199 * * * The CPT had "[e]valuation and [m]anagement (E/M) [s]ervice [g]uidelines" (E/M Guidelines). It was noted on the first page of the E/M Guidelines that: The E/M section is divided into broad categories such as office visits, hospital visits, and consultations. Most of the categories are further divided into two or more subcategories of E/M services. For example, there are two subcategories of office visits (new patient and established patient) and there are two subcategories of hospital visits (initial and subsequent). The subcategories of the E/M services are further classified into levels of E/M services that are identified by specific codes. . . . "New and [e]stablished patient[s]" were described in the E/M Guidelines as follows: A new patient is one who has not received any professional services from the physician or another physician of the same specialty who belongs to the same group practice, within the past three years. An established patient is one who has received professional services from the physician or another physician of the same specialty who belongs to the same group practice, within the past three years. The concept of "[l]evels of E/M [s]ervices" was described, in pertinent part, as follows in the E/M Guidelines: Within each category or subcategory of E/M service, there are three to five levels of E/M services available for reporting purposes. Levels of E/M services are not interchangeable among the different categories of service. For example, the first level of E/M services in the subcategory of office visit, new patient, does not have the same definition as the first level of E/M services in the subcategory of office visit, established patient. The levels of E/M services include examinations, evaluations, treatments, conferences with or concerning patients, preventative pediatric and adult health supervision, and similar medical services, such as the determination of the need and/or location for appropriate care. Medical screening includes the history, examination, and medical decision-making required to determine the need and/or location for appropriate care and treatment of the patient (e.g., office and other outpatient setting, emergency department, nursing facility, etc.). The levels of E/M services encompass the wide variations in skill, effort, time, responsibility and medical knowledge required for the prevention or diagnosis and treatment of illness or injury and the promotion of optimal health. Each level of E/M services may be used by all physicians. The descriptors for the levels of E/M services recognize seven components, six of which are used in defining the levels of E/M services. These components are: history; examination; medical decision making; counseling; coordination of care; nature of presenting problem; and time. The first three of these components (history, examination and medical decision making) are considered the key components in selecting a level of E/M services. . . . The next three components (counseling, coordination of care, and the nature of the presenting problem) are considered contributory factors in the majority of encounters. . . . * * * The actual performance and/or interpretation of diagnostic tests/studies ordered during a patient encounter are not included in the levels of E/M services. Physician performance of diagnostic tests for which specific CPT codes are available may be reported separately, in addition to the appropriate E/M code. The physician's interpretation of the results or diagnostic tests/studies (i.e., professional component) with preparation of a separate distinctly identifiable signed written report may also be reported separately, using the appropriate CPT code with the modifier -26 appended. * * * Time . . . . The inclusion of time as an explicit factor beginning in CPT 1992 is done to assist physicians in selecting the most appropriate level of E/M services. It should be recognized that the specific times expressed in the visit code descriptors are averages, and therefore represent a range of times which may be higher or lower depending on actual clinical circumstances. * * * The E/M Guidelines contained "[i]nstructions for [s]electing a [l]evel of E/M [s]ervice," which read, in pertinent part, as follows: * * * Review of Level of E/M Service Descriptors and Examples in the Selected Category or Subcategory The descriptors for the levels of E/M services recognize seven components, six of which are used in defining the levels of E/M services. These components are: history; examination; medical decision making; counseling; coordination of care; nature of presenting problem; and time. The first three or these components (i.e., history, examination and medical decision making) are considered the key components in selecting a level of E/M services. An exception to this rule is in the case of visits which consist predominantly of counseling or coordination of care. . . . The nature of the presenting problem and time are provided in some levels to assist the physician in determining the appropriate level of E/M service. Determine the Extent of History Obtained The extent of history is dependent upon clinical judgment and on the nature of the presenting problem(s). The levels of E/M services recognize four types of history that are defined as followed: Problem Focused: chief complaint; brief history of present illness or problem. Expanded Problem Focused: chief complaint; brief history of present illness; problem pertinent system review. Detailed: chief complaint; extended history of present illness; problem pertinent system review extended to include a review of a limited number of additional systems; pertinent past, family and/or social history directly related to the patient's problems. Comprehensive: chief complaint; extended history of present illness; review of systems which is directly related to the problem(s) identified in the history of the present illness plus a review of all additional body systems; complete past, family and social history. * * * Determine the Extent of Examination Performed The extent of the examination performed is dependent on clinical judgment and on the nature of the presenting problem(s). The levels of E/M services recognize four types of examinations that are defined as follows: Problem Focused: a limited examination of the affected body area or organ system. Expanded Problem Focused: a limited examination of the affected body area or organ system and other symptomatic or related organ system(s). Detailed: an extended examination of the affected body area(s) and other symptomatic or related organ system(s). Comprehensive: a general multi-system examination or a complete examination of a single organ system. . . . For the purposes of these CPT definitions, the following body areas are recognized Head, including the face Neck Chest, including breasts and axilla Abdomen Genitalia, groin, buttocks Back Each extremity For the purposes of these CPT definitions, the following organ systems are recognized Eyes Ears, Nose, Mouth and Throat Cardiovascular Respiratory Gastrointestinal Genitourinary Musculoskeletal Skin Neurologic Psychiatric Hematologic/Lymphatic/Immunologic Determine the Complexity of Medical Decision Making Medical decision making refers to the complexity of establishing a diagnosis and/or selecting a management option as measured by: the number of possible diagnoses and/or the number of management options that must be considered; the amount and/or complexity of medical records, diagnostic tests, and/or other information that must be obtained, reviewed and analyzed; and -The risk of significant complications, morbidity and/or mortality, as well as comorbidities, associated with the patient's presenting problem(s), the diagnostic procedure(s) and/or the possible management options. Four types of medical decision making are recognized: straightforward; low complexity; moderate complexity; and high complexity. To qualify for a given type of decision making, two of the three elements [shown below] must be met or exceeded. Type of Decision Making: straightforward; Number of Diagnoses or Management Options: minimal; Amount and/or Complexity of Data to be Reviewed: minimal or none; Risk of Complications and/or Morbidity or Mortality: minimal Type of Decision Making: low complexity; Number of Diagnoses or Management Options: limited; Amount and/or Complexity of Data to be Reviewed: limited; Risk of Complications and/or Morbidity or Mortality: low Type of Decision making: moderate complexity; Number of Diagnoses or Management Options: multiple; Amount and/or Complexity of Data to be Reviewed: moderate; Risk of Complications and/or Morbidity or Mortality: moderate Type of Decision Making: High complexity; Number of Diagnoses or Management Options: extensive; Amount and/or Complexity of Data to be Reviewed: extensive; Risk of Complications and/or Morbidity or Mortality: high Comorbidities/underlying diseases, in and of themselves, are not considered in selecting a level of E/M services unless their presence significantly increases the complexity of the medical decision making. Select the Appropriate Level of E/M Services Based on the Following For the following categories/ subcategories, all of the key components, i.e., history, examination, and medical decision making, must meet or exceed the stated requirements to qualify for a particular level of E/M service: office, new patient; hospital observation services; initial hospital care; office consultations; initial inpatient consultations; confirmatory consultations; emergency department services; comprehensive nursing facility assessments; domiciliary care, new patient; and home, new patient. . . For the following categories/ subcategories, two of the three key components, (i.e., history, examination, and medical decision making) must meet or exceed the stated requirements to qualify for a particular level of E/M service: office, established patient; subsequent hospital care; follow-up inpatient consultations; subsequent nursing facility care; domiciliary care, established patient; and home, established patient. In the case where counseling and/or coordination of care dominates (more than 50%) of the physician/patient and/or family encounter (face-to-face time in the office or other outpatient setting or floor/unit time in the hospital or nursing facility) then time is considered the key or controlling factor to qualify for a particular level of E/M services. The extent of counseling and/or coordination of care must be documented in the medical record.[5] The CPT contained the following codes and code descriptions for "E/M" office and other outpatient services: New Patient 99201 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient, which requires these three key components: a problem focused history; a problem focused examination; and straightforward medical decision making. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problems are self- limited or minor. Physicians typically spend 10 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * 99202 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient which requires these three key components: an expanded problem focused history; an expanded problem focused examination; and straightforward medical decision making. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of low to moderate severity. Physicians typically spend 20 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * 99203 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient which requires these three key components: a detailed history; a detailed examination; and medical decision making of low complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate severity. Physicians typically spend 30 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * 99204 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient which requires these three key components: a comprehensive history; a comprehensive examination; and medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate to high severity. Physicians typically spend 45 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * 99205 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient which requires these three key components: a comprehensive history; a comprehensive examination; and medical decision making of high complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problems are of moderate to high severity. Physicians typically spend 60 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * Established Patient 99211 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient that may not require the presence of a physician. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are minimal. Typically, 5 minutes are spent performing or supervising these services. * * * 99212 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: a problem focused history; a problem focused examination; straightforward medical decision making. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are self- limited or minor. Physicians typically spend 10 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * 99213 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: an expanded problem focused history; an expanded problem focused examination; medical decision making of low complexity. Counseling and coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of low to moderate severity. Physicians typically spend 15 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * 99214 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: a detailed history; a detailed examination; medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate to high severity. Physicians typically spend 25 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * 99215 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: a comprehensive history; a comprehensive examination; medical decision making of high complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate to high severity. Physicians typically spend 40 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. The CPT provided separate codes for "prolonged physician service with direct (face-to-face) patient contact" and contained the following explanation as to when these codes were to be used: Codes 99354-99357 are used when a physician provides prolonged service involving direct (face-to-face) patient contact that is beyond the usual service in either the inpatient or outpatient setting. This service is reported in addition to other physician service, including evaluation and management service at any level. Appropriate codes should be selected for supplies or procedures performed in the care of the patient during this period. Codes 99354-99357 are used to report the total duration of face-to-face time spent by a physician on a given date providing prolonged service, even if the time spent by the physician on that date is not continuous. Code 99354 or 99356 is used to report the first hour of prolonged service on a given date, depending on the place of service. Either code also may be used to report a total duration of prolonged service of 30-60 minutes on a given date. Either code should be used only once per date, even if the time spent by the physician is not continuous on that date. Prolonged service of less than 30 minutes total duration on a given date is not separately reported because the work involved is included in the total work of the evaluation and management codes. Code 99355 or 99357 is used to report each additional 30 minutes beyond the first hour, depending on the place of service. Either code may also be used to report the final 15-30 minutes of prolonged service on a given date. Prolonged service of less than 15 minutes beyond the first hour or less than 15 minutes beyond the final 30 minutes is not reported separately. * * * The Audit and Aftermath Commencing in or around August 2000, AHCA conducted an audit of paid Medicaid claims submitted by Petitioner for services assertedly rendered from May 22, 1998, through May 22, 2000.6 Petitioner had submitted 4,574 Medicaid claims for services assertedly rendered during the Audit Period to 492 patients, for which he had received payments totaling $156,903.14. From the 492 Medicaid patients to whom Petitioner had assertedly provided services during the Audit Period, AHCA randomly selected a "cluster sample" of 41, and obtained from Petitioner medical records he had on file for these 41 patients. Petitioner had submitted a total of 325 claims for services assertedly rendered to the 41 patients in the "cluster sample" during the Audit Period and had received a total of $11,562.14 in Medicaid payments for these services.7 Each of these claims was reviewed to determine whether it was supported by information contained in the medical records obtained from Petitioner. Based on a preliminary review, AHCA determined that Petitioner had been overpaid a total $58,157.96 for the Medicaid claims he had submitted for services assertedly rendered during the Audit Period. By letter dated September 10, 2002, AHCA advised Petitioner of this preliminary determination and "encourage[d] [him] to submit any additional information or documentation" in his possession that he believed would "serve to reduce the overpayment." The antepenultimate and penultimate paragraphs of the letter read as follows: Since you have a choice of accepting the above overpayment or submitting additional information, this is not a final action by the Agency for Health Care Administration. If you have not made payment within thirty (30) days, we will prepare and send to you the final agency determination, taking into consideration any information or documentation that you submit within that time period. Petitioner did not "ma[k]e payment within thirty (30) days" of AHCA's September 10, 2002, letter. As promised, following another review conducted after the expiration of this 30-day period, AHCA "prepare[d] and sen[t] to [Petitioner]" its Final Agency Audit Report showing the calculation of overpayments made to Petitioner during the Audit Period.8 AHCA's Final Agency Audit Report was dated January 28, 2003, and in the form of a letter to Petitioner, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: Medicaid Integrity has completed the review of your Medicaid claims for the procedures specified below for dates of service during the period May 22, 1998 through May 22, 2000. A Provisional Agency Audit Report, dated September 10, 2002, was sent to you indicating that we had determined you were overpaid $58,157.96. Based upon a review of all documentation submitted, we have determined that you were overpaid $58,157.96 for services that in whole or in part are not covered by Medicaid. Pursuant to Section 409.913, Florida Statutes (F.S.), this letter shall serve as notice of the following sanction(s): The provider is subject to comprehensive follow-up review in six months. In determining the appropriateness of Medicaid payment pursuant to Medicaid policy, the Medicaid program utilizes procedure codes, descriptions, policies, limitations and requirements found in the Medicaid provider handbooks and Section 409.913, F.S. In applying for Medicaid reimbursement providers are required to follow the guidelines set forth in the applicable rules[9] and Medicaid fee schedules, as promulgated in the Medicaid policy handbooks, billing bulletins, and the Medicaid provider agreement. Medicaid cannot pay for services that do not meet these guidelines. The following is our assessment of why certain claims paid to your provider number do not meet Medicaid requirements. The audit work papers detailing the claims affected by this assessment are attached. REVIEW DETERMINATION(S) Medicaid policy specifies how medical records must be maintained. A review of your medical records revealed that some services for which you billed and received payment were not documented. Medicaid requires documentation of the services and considers payments made for services not appropriately documented an overpayment. Medicaid policy defines the varying levels of care and expertise required for the evaluation and management procedure codes for office visits. The documentation you provided supports a lower level of office visit than the one for which you billed and received payment. The difference between the amounts you were paid and the correct payment for the appropriate level of service is considered an overpayment. Medicaid policy requires services performed be medically necessary for the diagnosis and treatment of an illness. You billed and received payments 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. The claims, which were considered medically unnecessary, were disallowed and the money you were paid for these procedures is considered an overpayment. Medicaid policy addresses specific billing requirements and procedures. In some instances, you billed a procedure code as global and also billed the professional when the professional component was incorporated in the global fee. The difference between the amounts you were paid and the appropriate fee is considered an overpayment. The overpayment was calculated as follows: A random sample of 41 recipients respecting whom you submitted 325 claims was reviewed. For those claims in the sample which have dates of service from May 22, 1998, through May 22, 2000, an overpayment of $5,004.04 or $15.39704606 per claim was found, as indicated on the accompanying schedule. Since you were paid for a total (population) of 4,574 claims for that period, the point estimate of the total overpayment is $15.39704606 x 4,574=$70,426.09. There is a 50 percent probability that the overpayment to you is that amount or more. There was then an explanation of the "statistical formula for cluster sampling" that AHCA used and how it "calculated that the overpayment to [Petitioner was] $58,157.96 with a ninety-five percent (95%) probability that it is that amount or more." The concluding portions of the letter advised Petitioner of his right to "request an administrative hearing [on this overpayment determination] pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes." The "Medicaid physician consultant" referred to in AHCA's January 28, 2003, letter was Lisa Kohler, M.D., a Florida-licensed "family physician," who is certified by the American Board of Family Practice and is a fellow of the American Academy of Family Physicians. Dr. Kohler received her medical education at the University of South Florida College of Medicine, from which she graduated in 1985. After graduation, she did her internship and residency at Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center's Family Practice Residency program. In 1988, following the completion of her residency, she entered private practice. She currently serves as the Associate Director of the Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center's Family Practice Residency program. In addition, she is a Clinical Assistant Professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of South Florida College of Medicine and the Volunteer Medical Director of the Neighborhood Health Services in Tallahassee, Florida, a health clinic that provides free medical care to indigent patients. In accordance with the "peer review" provisions of Section 409.9131, Florida Statutes, which became effective July 1, 1999, AHCA had Dr. Kohler review all of the records that Petitioner had provided regarding the 41 patients in the "cluster sample"10 to determine whether there was documentation to support the Medicaid claims relating to these patients that Petitioner had submitted for services assertedly rendered during the Audit Period. In conducting her "peer review," Dr. Kohler did not interview any of the 41 patients in the "cluster sample," nor did she take any other steps to supplement the information contained in the records she examined. Her assessment of the propriety of Petitioner's billing was based exclusively on what was in those records and no other information. On February 19, 2003, Petitioner requested an administrative hearing on the overpayment determination (announced in AHCA's January 28, 2003, letter to Petitioner). On or about August 20, 2003, following a meeting between the parties, AHCA made a downward revision in its overpayment calculation, to $47,931.79. AHCA has made no additional revisions to its overpayment calculation in the instant case. It maintains that Petitioner received $47,931.79 in Medicaid overpayments for services claimed to have been provided during the Audit Period. In making this final overpayment calculation, AHCA determined, correctly, that Petitioner was overpaid a total of $3,867.62, or $11.90036931 per claim, for the 325 claims he had submitted seeking reimbursement from Medicaid for services assertedly rendered during the Audit Period to the 41 patients in the "cluster sample." Using a statistical formula the validity of which Petitioner has not disputed, AHCA extended these results to the total "population" of 4,574 Medicaid claims that Petitioner had submitted for services assertedly rendered during the Audit Period, and it correctly calculated that Petitioner had been overpaid a total of $47,931.79. Simple Mistake or Fraud? There has been no allegation made, nor proof submitted, that any of Petitioner's overbillings was the product of anything other than simple mistake or inadvertence on Petitioner's part.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that AHCA enter a final order finding that Petitioner received $47,931.79 in Medicaid overpayments for paid claims covering the period from May 22, 1998, through May 22, 2000, and requiring Petitioner to repay this amount to AHCA. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 June, 2004.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the provider, Medilab, was overpaid for medicaid claims as alleged in the letter dated November 3, 1993.
Findings Of Fact The Agency is the state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid program. At all times material to this case, Medilab was a medicaid provider. Medilab enrolled as a physician group provider on or about October 2, 1991. Medilab was not enrolled with the Florida Medicaid program as a diagnostic lab. At all times material to this case, Medilab was owned and operated by Roberto Rodriguez and Jorge Nunez. Mr. Rodriguez handled the administrative duties for Medilab while Mr. Nunez operated the diagnostic portion of the business. Medilab operated several machines for diagnostic evaluations as ordered by a physician. Such machines produced documentation which was then evaluated by another physician. Dr. Carmouze did not perform the service nor interpret the diagnostic results. When Medilab applied for a provider number to enroll in the Medicaid program it represented that services were to be provided by Dr. Arnoldo Carmouze. It was further represented that Dr. Carmouze would treat or supervise treatment of patients on behalf of the Medilab "group." On or about January 11, 1992, Medilab received its group provider number along with a copy of the Medicaid Physician Provider Handbook. Medilab was notified that it could begin billing for services beginning October 2, 1991. Subsequently, the Agency performed an audit of Medilab for the period October 2, 1991 through August 31, 1992. Li-Hsiang Wu, a computer systems project analyst employed by the Agency, generated a random sample of Medicaid recipients by using a computer program to calculate the total number of Medicaid recipients for which claims were submitted during the audit period. Then Medilab's provider number and the dates of the audit were used to generate the total number of Medicaid recipients for whom claims were submitted by Medilab for the audit period. Once the total number of recipients was identified, Ms. Wu generated a list of forty-three recipient numbers which were selected by the computer from the total number claimed by Medilab for the period searched. Mr. Allen then requested and obtained from Medilab the medical records for the same forty-three randomly selected Medicaid recipients. The medical records were first reviewed by Phyllis Stiver, the Agency's registered nurse consultant. Once Ms. Stiver completed her initial review, Mr. Allen requested additional records from Medilab. Specifically, documentation for the office visit and records that established the necessity for the tests performed by Medilab were requested for each of the forty-three recipients. Medilab subsequently submitted additional records to the Agency which were also reviewed by Ms. Stiver. Ms. Stiver determined that based upon her review of the forty-three records, Medilab had violated Medicaid rules and policy as follows: Medilab failed to have all of the medical records signed by a physician and dated; and Medilab failed to document in the medical records to show that certain diagnostic tests were performed. After Ms. Stiver completed her review of the records, Dr. Sullenberger reviewed each of Medilab's medical records for the forty-three patients. Dr. Sullenberger determined, and it is found, that the majority of the tests performed by Medilab were not medically necessary based upon the symptoms documented for each patient, the prior patient histories established by the records, and the absence of other, less expensive testing that would normally be utilized to determine a medical condition. Virtually all of the patient records reviewed recited the same medical complaints: chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitation, numbness or tingling in extremities, and dizziness. Only five of the forty-three patients were over 49 years of age. The ages of the majority of the forty-three were under 50. That age group is rarely afflicted by the types of medical conditions which the Medilab equipment was used to detect. The symptoms and medical histories recited in the medical records did not justify the tests performed by Medilab for the following patients (recipients identified in this record as numbers 1 through 43): 1, 2, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, and 41. With the exception of the electrocardiogram, the symptoms and medical histories recited in the medical records did not justify the tests performed by Medilab for the following patients (recipients identified in this record as numbers 1 through 43): 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 36, 39, 40, 42, and 43. With regard to recipient 8, except for the electrocardiogram and the abdominal ultrasound, the tests performed by Medilab were medically unnecessary. With regard to recipient 10, except for the electrocardiogram and the Doppler echocardiogram, the tests performed by Medilab were medically unnecessary. With regard to recipient 14, except for the electrocardiogram and the echocardiogram, the tests performed by Medilab were medically unnecessary. With regard to recipient 28, except for the mammogram, the tests performed by Medilab were medically unnecessary. None of the services or testing performed by Medilab were supervised by a physician. Two physicians, Dr. Pozo and Dr. Pereira, radiologists, read the diagnostic results but were not on site to perform or supervise the tests on a daily basis. Dr. Pozo did not supervise the services that were provided at Medilab. Dr. Pereira, who is deceased and whose testimony was not available, did not supervise the services that were provided at Medilab. According to Mr. Nunez, Dr. Pereira had someone from his office courier the tests results and his interpretations to and from the Medilab facility. Dr. Pereira may have visited the facility on occasion but was not there during its full hours of operation. Dr. Carmouze, the treating physician and representative for Medilab's physician group, did not supervise the services at Medilab. Dr. Carmouze treated over 95 percent of the total patients referred to Medilab yet Dr. Carmouze never billed the Medicaid program for the patients' office visits. For the audit period, of the 493 different patients Medilab billed Medicaid for, Dr. Carmouze is the only treating physician identified by the records. The Medicaid Physician's Handbook, supplied to Medilab at the time of its enrollment, specified that to be reimbursable the services performed by a physician group provider had to be medically necessary and supervised by a physician. The Medicaid Provider Agreement required Medilab to keep complete and accurate medical and fiscal records that fully justify and disclose the extent of the services rendered for five years. All tests performed by Medilab were documented with a physician's order for same. Medilab submitted for review all medical and fiscal records it maintained in its attempt to fully justify and disclose the extent of the services it rendered.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration, Medicaid Program Integrity Office, issue a final order charging Medilab for the full amounts paid for the audit period as the services rendered were not supervised by a physician and were, therefore, not "physician services." Additionally, the Agency should impose an administrative fine in an amount not to exceed $5,000.00. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 1st day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 1st day of March 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-0096 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 6, and 12 are accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected as not supported by the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 7 is accepted as to the general statement but is rejected as to the amount claimed. Paragraph 8 is rejected as a mischaracterization of testimony; it is accepted Dr. Sullenberger, on further reflection and in an effort to be consistent, gave Medilab the benefit of doubt and modified disallowed items. Paragraph 9 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 10 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 11 is rejected as contrary to weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 13 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant. That Dr. Carmouze never charged for the alleged office visits that generated the referral for tests was the relevant fact. Paragraph 15 is accurate but is irrelevant in light of the stipulation. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 36, 39, 41, 43, 46, 48, 49, 50, 52, and 53 are accepted. Paragraphs 37, 38, 40, 42, and 47 are rejected as argument. Paragraph 44 is rejected as hearsay not supported by direct evidence. Paragraph 45 is rejected as not supported by the weight of credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 51, the first sentence is accepted; the remainder rejected as not supported by the weight of credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Heidi E. Garwood Agency for Health Care Administration 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building B, Room 271 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Monte K. Rassner Rassner, Rassner, Kramer & Gold, P.A. 7000 Southwest 62nd Avenue, Suite PH-B South Miami, Florida 33143 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Tom Wallace, Assistant Director Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Does Petitioner, AHF MCO of Florida, Inc., d/b/a PHC Florida HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan (Positive), have standing to contest the intended award to Simply for Regions 10 and 11 or to seek rejection of all proposals? (Case No. 18-3507 and 18-3508) Should the intended decision of Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), to contract with Simply Healthcare Plans, Inc. (Simply), for Medicaid managed care plans for HIV/AIDS patients in Regions 10 (Broward County) and Region 11 (Miami-Dade and Collier Counties) be invalidated and all proposals rejected? (Case Nos. 18-3507 and 18-3508) Must the Agency negotiate with Petitioner, South Florida Community Care Network, LLC, d/b/a Community Care Plan (Community), about a plan to provide HIV/AIDS Medicaid managed care services in Region 10 because it was the only responsive proposer of services that was a Provider Service Network (PSN)? (Case No. 18-3512) Must the Agency negotiate with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services in Region 10 for people with Serious Mental Illnesses because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3511) Must the Agency contract with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services for Children with Special Needs in Region 10 because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3513) Must the Agency negotiate with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services for Child Welfare patients in Region 10 because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3514)
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES Agency: Section 20.42, Florida Statutes, establishes the Agency as Florida’s chief health policy and planning agency. The Agency is the single state agency authorized to select eligible plans to participate in the Medicaid program. Positive: Positive is a Florida not-for-profit corporation operating a Medicaid health plan dedicated to serving people with HIV/AIDS. Positive serves about 2,000 patients in Florida. Positive’s health plan is accredited by the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Healthcare. Its disease management program is accredited by the National Committee for Quality Assurance. Currently, the Agency contracts with Positive for a SMMC HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan serving Regions 10 and 11. Simply: Simply is a Florida for-profit corporation operating a Medicaid health plan dedicated to serving people with HIV/AIDS. Currently, the Agency contracts with Simply to provide a SMMC HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan for Regions 1 through 3 and 5 through 11. Simply has maintained the largest patient enrollment of all HIV/AIDs plans in Florida since Florida started its statewide Medicaid managed care program. Community Care: Community is a Florida limited liability company. It is a PSN as defined in sections 409.912(1)(b) and 409.962(14), Florida Statutes. Staywell: Staywell is the fictitious name for WellCare of Florida, Inc., serving Florida’s Medicaid population. Sunshine: Sunshine State Health Plan (Sunshine) is a Florida corporation. It offers managed care plans to Florida Medicaid recipients. THE INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE TIMELINE On July 14, 2017, the Agency released 11 ITNs plans for Florida’s Medicaid managed care program in 11 statutorily defined regions. Region 10, Broward County, and Region 11, Miami-Dade and Collier Counties, are the regions relevant to this proceeding. Part IV of chapter 409, creates a statewide, integrated managed care program for Medicaid services. This program called Statewide Medicaid Managed Care includes two programs, Managed Medical Assistance and Long-term Care. Section 409.966(2), directs the Agency to conduct separate and simultaneous procurements to select eligible plans for each region using the ITN procurement process created by section 287.057(1)(c). The ITNs released July 14, 2017, fulfilled that command. The Agency issued 11 identical ITNs of 624 pages, one for each region, in omnibus form. They provided elements for four types of plans. Some elements were common to all types. Others were restricted to a specific plan type defined by intended patient population. The plan types are comprehensive plans, long-term care plus plans, managed medical assistance plans, and specialty plans. Section 409.962(16) defines “Specialty Plan” as a “managed care plan that serves Medicaid recipients who meet specified criteria based on age, medical condition, or diagnosis.” Responding vendors identified the plan type or types that they were proposing. The Agency issued Addendum No. 1 to the ITNs on September 14, 2017. On October 2, 2017, the Agency issued Addendum No. 2 to the ITNs. Addendum 2 included 628 questions about the ITNs and the Agency’s responses to the questions. Florida law permits potential responders to an ITN to challenge the specifications of an ITN, including the addendums. § 120.57(3)(b), Fla. Stat. Nobody challenged the specifications of the ITNs. As contemplated by section 287.057(c)(2), the Agency conducted “a conference or written question and answer period for purposes of assuring the vendors’ full understanding of the solicitation requirements.” Positive, Community, and Simply, along with United Healthcare of Florida, Inc., HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan (United), submitted responses to the ITN in Region 10 proposing HIV/AIDS Specialty Plans. Community was the only PSN to propose an HIV/AIDS plan for Region 10. Positive, Simply, and United submitted replies to the ITN for Region 11, proposing HIV/AIDS Specialty Plans. Community, United, Staywell, and one other provider submitted proposals to provide SMI Specialty Plan services in Region 10. Community was the only responding PSN. Community, Sunshine, and Staywell submitted proposals to provide Child Welfare Specialty Plans (CW) in Region 10. Community was the only PSN. Community, Staywell, and two others submitted proposals to offer Specialty Plans for Children with Special Needs (CSN) in Region 10. Community was one of two responding PSNs. Proposal scoring began November 6, 2017, and ended January 16, 2018. The Agency announced its intended awards on April 24, 2018. On April 24, 2018, the Agency issued its notices of intent to award specialty contracts in Regions 10 and 11. The following charts summarize the Agency’s ranking of the proposals and its intended awards. The two highest ranked plans, which the Agency selected for negotiations, are identified in bold. Region 10 – Children with Special Needs Respondent Intended Award Ranking Staywell No 1 Community No 2 Miami Children’s Health Plan, LLC No 3 Our Children PSN of Florida, LLC No 4 Region 10 – Child Welfare Respondent Intended Award Ranking Staywell No 1 Sunshine Yes 2 Molina Healthcare of Florida, Inc. No 3 Community No 4 Region 10 – HIV/AIDS Respondent Intended Award Ranking Simply Yes 1 United No 2 Community No 3 Positive No 4 Region 10 – Serious Mental Illness Respondent Intended Award Ranking Staywell Yes 1 United No 2 Florida MHS, Inc. No 3 Community No 4 Region 11 – HIV/AIDS Respondent Intended Award Ranking Simply Yes 1 United No 2 Positive No 3 All of the Specialty Plan awards noticed by the Agency went to bidders who also proposed, and received, comprehensive plan awards. The protests, referrals, and proceedings before the Division summarized in the Preliminary Statement followed the Agency’s announcement of its intended awards. TERMS The voluminous ITN consisted of a two-page transmittal letter and three Attachments (A, B, and C), with a total of 34 exhibits to them. They are: Attachment A, Exhibits A-1 through A-8, Attachment B, Exhibits B-1 through B-3, and Attachment C, Exhibits C-1 through C-8. The ITN establishes a two-step process for selecting: an evaluation phase and a negotiation phase. In the evaluation phase, each respondent was required to submit a proposal responding to criteria of the ITN. Proposals were to be evaluated, scored, and ranked. The goal of the evaluation phase was to determine which respondents would move to negotiations, not which would be awarded a contract. The top two ranking Specialty Plans per specialty population would be invited to negotiations. In the negotiation phase, the Agency would negotiate with each invited respondent. After that, the Agency would announce its intended award of a contract to the plan or plans that the Agency determined would provide the best value. Together, the attachments and exhibits combined instructions, criteria, forms, certifications, and data into a “one size fits all” document that described the information required for four categories of managed care plans to serve Medicaid patients. The ITN also provided data to consider in preparing responses. The transmittal letter emphasized, “Your response must comply fully with the instructions that stipulate what is to be included in the response.” The ITNs identified Jennifer Barrett as the procurement officer and sole point of contact with the Agency for vendors. The transmittal letter is reproduced here. This solicitation is being issued by the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, hereinafter referred to as “AHCA” or “Agency”, to select a vendor to provide Statewide Medicaid Managed Care Program services. The solicitation package consists of this transmittal letter and the following attachments and exhibits: Attachment A Instructions and Special ConditionsExhibit A-1 Questions TemplateExhibit A-2-a Qualification of Plan Eligibility Exhibit A-2-b Provider Service Network Certification of Ownership and Controlling InterestExhibit A-2-c Additional Required Certifications and StatementsExhibit A-3-a Milliman Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan Exhibit A-3-b Milliman Employee Organizational Conflict of Interest AffidavitExhibit A-4 Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria InstructionsExhibit A-4-a General Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria Exhibit A-4-a-1 SRC# 6 - General Performance Measurement ToolExhibit A-4-a-2 SRC# 9 - Expanded Benefits Tool (Regional) Exhibit A-4-a-3 SRC# 10 - Additional Expanded Benefits Template (Regional)Exhibit A-4-a-4 SRC# 14 - Standard CAHPS Measurement Tool Exhibit A-4-b MMA Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria Exhibit A-4-b-1 MMA SRC# 6 - Provider Network Agreements/Contracts (Regional)Exhibit A-4-b-2 MMA SRC# 14 - MMA Performance Measurement Tool Exhibit A-4-b-3 MMA SRC# 21 - Provider Network Agreements/Contracts Statewide Essential Providers Exhibit A-4-c LTC Submission Requirements and Evaluation CriteriaExhibit A-4-c-1 LTC SRC# 4 - Provider Network Agreements/Contracts (Regional) Exhibit A-4-d Specialty Submission Requirements and Evaluation CriteriaExhibit A-5 Summary of Respondent CommitmentsExhibit A-6 Summary of Managed Care Savings Exhibit A-7 Certification of Drug-Free Workplace ProgramExhibit A-8 Standard Contract Attachment B Scope of Service - Core Provisions Exhibit B-1 Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) ProgramExhibit B-2 Long-Term Care (LTC) ProgramExhibit B-3 Specialty Plan Attachment C Cost Proposal Instructions and Rate Methodology NarrativeExhibit C-1 Capitated Plan Cost Proposal TemplateExhibit C-2 FFS PSN Cost Proposal Template Exhibit C-3 Preliminary Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Program Rate Cell Factors Exhibit C-4 Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Program Expanded Benefit Adjustment Factors Exhibit C-5 Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Program IBNR Adjustment Factors Exhibit C-6 Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Program Historical Capitated Plan Provider Contracting Levels During SFY 15/16 Time Period Exhibit C-7 Statewide Medicaid Managed Care Data BookExhibit C-8 Statewide Medicaid Managed Care Data Book Questions and Answers Your response must comply fully with the instructions that stipulate what is to be included in the response. Respondents submitting a response to this solicitation shall identify the solicitation number, date and time of opening on the envelope transmitting their response. This information is used only to put the Agency mailroom on notice that the package received is a response to an Agency solicitation and therefore should not be opened, but delivered directly to the Procurement Officer. The ITN describes the plans as follows: Comprehensive Long-term Care Plan (herein referred to as a “Comprehensive Plan”) – A Managed Care Plan that is eligible to provide Managed Medical Assistance services and Long-term Care services to eligible recipients. Long-term Care Plus Plan – A Managed Care Plan that is eligible to provide Managed Medical Assistance services and Long-term Care services to eligible recipients enrolled in the Long-term Care program. This plan type is not eligible to provide services to recipients who are only eligible for MMA services. Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Plan – A Managed Care Plan that is eligible to provide Managed Medical Assistance services to eligible recipients. This plan type is not eligible to provide services to recipients who are eligible for Long-term Care services. Specialty Plan – A Managed Care Plan that is eligible to provide Managed Medical Assistance services to eligible recipients who are defined as a specialty population in the resulting Contract. Specialty Plans are at issue. The ITN did not define, describe, or specify specialty populations to be served. It left that to the responding vendors. Beyond that, the ITN left the ultimate definition of the specialty population for negotiation, saying in Section II(B)(1)(a) of Attachment B, Exhibit B-3, “[t]he Agency shall identify the specialty population eligible for enrollment in the Specialty Plan based on eligibility criteria based upon negotiations.” Some respondents directly identified the specialty population. Simply’s transmittal letter stated that it proposed “a Specialty plan for individuals with HIV/AIDS.” Positive’s response to Exhibit A-4-d Specialty SRC 4, eligibility and enrollment, stated, “the specialty population for the PHC [Positive] plan will be Medicaid eligible, male and female individuals from all age groups who are HIV positive with or without symptoms and those individuals who have progressed in their HIV disease to meet the CDC definition of AIDS.” Some others left definition of the specialty population to be inferred from the ITN response. The result is that the ITN left definition of the specialty populations initially to the respondents and ultimately to negotiations between the Agency and successful respondents. Petitioners and Intervenors describe the populations that they propose serving as HIV/AIDS patients, patients with SMI, CSN, and child welfare populations. ITN respondents could have proposed serving only cancer patients, serving only obstetric patients, or serving only patients with hemophilia. The part of the ITN requiring a respondent to identify the plan type for which it was responding offered only four alternative blocks to check. They were: “Comprehensive Plan,” Long-Term Care Plus Plan,” “Managed Medical Assistance Plan,” or “Specialty Plan.” Attachment A to the ITN, labeled “Instructions and Special Conditions,” provides an overview of the solicitation process; instructions for response preparation and content; information regarding response submission requirements; information regarding response evaluation, negotiations, and contract awards; and information regarding contract implementation. Exhibits A-1 to A-3 and A-5 to A-7 of the ITN contain various certifications and attestations that respondents had to prepare and verify. Exhibit A-4 contains submission requirement components (SRCs) to which respondents had to prepare written responses. Exhibit A-8 contains the state’s standard SMMC contract. ITN Exhibit A-4-a contains 36 general submission requirements and evaluation criteria (General SRCs). ITN Exhibit A-4-b contains 21 MMA submission requirements and evaluation criteria (MMA SRCs). ITN Exhibit A-4-c contains 13 LTC submission requirements and evaluation criteria (LTC SRCs). ITN Exhibit A-4-d contains five specialty submission requirements and evaluation criteria (Specialty SRCs). The responses that the 36 SRCs require vary greatly. Some are as simple as providing documents or listing items. Others require completing tables or spreadsheets with data. Consequently, responses to some SRCS apparently could be reviewed in very little time, even a minute or less. Others requiring narrative responses might take longer. Examples follow. General SRC 1 required a list of the respondent’s contracts for managed care services and 12 information items about them including things such as whether they were capitated, a narrative describing the scope of work; the number of enrollees; and accomplishments and achievement. General SRC 2 asked for documentation of experience operating a Medicaid health plan in Florida. General SRC 3 asked for information confirming the location of facilities and employees in Florida. General SRC 12 requested a flowchart and written description of how the respondent would execute its grievance and appeal system. It listed six evaluation criteria. MMA SRC 2 asks for a description of the respondent’s organizational commitment to quality improvement “as it relates to pregnancy and birth outcomes.” It lists seven evaluation criteria. MMA SRC 10 asks for a description of the respondent’s plan for transition of care between service settings. It lists six evaluation criteria including the respondent’s process for collaboration with providers. Specialty SRC 1 asks for detailed information about respondent’s managed care experience with the specialty population. Specialty SRC 5 asks for detailed information about the respondent’s provider network standards and provides five evaluation criteria for evaluating the answers. Exhibit A-8 of the ITN contains the standard SMMC contract. Attachment B and Exhibits B-1 to B-3 of the ITN contain information about the scope of service and core provisions for plans under the SMMC program. Attachment C and Exhibits C-1 to C-8 of the ITN contain information related to the cost proposals and rate methodologies for plans under the SMMC program. The ITN permitted potential respondents to submit written questions about the solicitation to the Agency by August 14, 2017. Some did. On September 14, 2017, the Agency issued Addendum No. 1 to the ITN. Among other things, Addendum No. 1 changed the anticipated date for the Agency’s responses to respondents’ written questions from September 15 to October 2, 2017. The Agency issued Addendum No. 2 to the ITN on October 2, 2017. Addendum No. 2 included a chart with 628 written questions from potential respondents and the Agency’s answers. Attachment A at A 10-(d) makes it clear that the answers are part of the addendum. Both Addendums to the ITN cautioned that any protest of the terms, conditions, or specifications of the Addendums to the ITN had to be filed with the Agency within 72 hours of their posting. No respondent protested. Instructions for the A-4 Exhibits included these requirements: Each SRC contains form fields. Population of the form fields with text will allow the form field to expand and cross pages. There is no character limit. All SRCs, marked as “(Statewide)” must be identical for each region in which the respondent submits a reply. For timeliness of response evaluation, the Agency will evaluate each “(Statewide)” SRC once and transfer the score to each applicable region’s evaluation score sheet(s). The SRCs marked as “(Regional)” will be specific and only apply to the region identified in the solicitation and the evaluation score will not be transferred to any other region. The instructions continue: Agency evaluators will be instructed to evaluate the responses based on the narrative contained in the SRC form fields and the associated attachment(s), if applicable. Each response will be independently evaluated and awarded points based on the criteria and points scale using the Standard Evaluation Criteria Scale below unless otherwise identified in each SRC contained within Exhibit A-4. This is the scale: STANDARD EVALUATION CRITERIA SCALE Point Score Evaluation 0 The component was not addressed. 1 The component contained significant deficiencies. 2 The component is below average. 3 The component is average. 4 The component is above average. 5 The component is excellent. The ITN further explained that different SRCs would be worth different “weights,” based on the subject matter of the SRC and on whether they were General, MMA, LTC, or Specialty SRCs. It assigned weights by establishing different “weight factors” applied as multipliers to the score a respondent received on a criteria. For example, “Respondent Background/Experience” could generate a raw score of 90. Application of a weight factor of three made 270 the maximum possible score for this criteria. “Oversight and Accountability” could generate a raw score of 275. A weight factor of one, however, made the maximum score available 275. General SRC 6 solicits HEDIS data. HEDIS is a tool that consists of 92 measures across six domains of care that make it possible to compare the performance of health plans on an “apples-to-apples” basis. SRC 6 states: The respondent shall describe its experience in achieving quality standards with populations similar to the target population described in this solicitation. The respondent shall include, in table format, the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible), the respondent’s results for the HEDIS measures specified below for each of the last two (2) years (CY 2015/ HEDIS 2016 and CY 2016/ HEDIS 2017) for the respondent’s three (3) largest Medicaid Contracts (measured by number of enrollees). If the respondent does not have HEDIS results for at least three (3) Medicaid Contracts, the respondent shall provide commercial HEDIS measures for the respondent’s largest Contracts. If the Respondent has Florida Medicaid HEDIS results, it shall include the Florida Medicaid experience as one (1) of three (3) states for the last two (2) years. The respondent shall provide the data requested in Exhibit A-4-a-1, General Performance Measurement Tool[.] x x x Score: This section is worth a maximum of 160 raw points x x x For each of the measure rates, a total of 10 points is available per state reported (for a total of 360 points available). The respondent will be awarded 2 points if their reported plan rate exceeded the national Medicaid mean and 2 points if their reported plan rate exceeded the applicable regional Medicaid mean, for each available year, for each available state. The respondent will be awarded an additional 2 points for each measure rate where the second year’s rate is an improvement over the first year’s rate, for each available state. An aggregate score will be calculated and respondents will receive a final score of 0 through 150 corresponding to the number and percentage of points received out of the total available points. For example, if a respondent receives 100% of the available 360 points, the final score will be 150 points (100%). If a respondent receives 324 (90%) of the available 360 points, the final score will be 135 points (90%). If a respondent receives 36 (10%) of the available 360 points, the final score will be 15 points (10%). The SRC is plainly referring to the broad Medicaid- eligible population when it says “the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible).” “Dual eligible” populations are persons eligible for Medicaid and Medicare. There, as throughout the ITN, the ITN delineates between a target population of all Medicaid-eligible patients and a specialty population as described in a respondent’s ITN proposal. The clear instructions for SRC 6 require, “Use the drop-down box to select the state for which you are reporting and enter the performance measure rates (to the hundredths place, or XX.XX) for that state's Medicaid population for the appropriate calendar year.” Community did not comply. General SRC 14 solicits similar data, in similar form using a similar tool, about a respondent’s Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS). CAHPS data is basically a satisfaction survey. It asks respondents to provide “in table format the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible) and the respondent’s results for the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) items/composites specified below for the 2017 survey for its adult and child populations for the respondent’s three (3) largest Medicaid Contracts (as measured by number of enrollees).” Just like General SRC 6 did with HEDIS data, General SRC 14 ITN instructed bidders to put their CAHPS data for the “target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible)” “for the respondent’s three (3) largest Medicaid Contracts (measured by number of enrollees)” for multiple states into an excel spreadsheet “to the hundredths place[.]” Also, like General SRC 6, General SRC 14 includes an objective formula described in the ITN for scoring bidders’ CAHPS data. RANKING PROVISIONS Attachment A at (D)(4)(c)(2) stated: Each response will be individually scored by at least three (3) evaluators, who collectively have experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which contractual services are sought by this solicitation. The Agency reserves the right to have specific sections of the response evaluated by less than three (3) individuals. The ITN’s example of how total point scores would be calculated, discussed below, also indicated that some sections may be scored by less than three evaluators. The explanatory chart had a column for “[o]ther Sections evaluated by less than three (3) evaluators. ” The Agency’s policy, however, has been to assign at least three evaluators to score program specific SRCs. Attachment A at (D)(4)(e)(2) advised respondents how the agency will rank the competing responses. It was clear and specific, even providing an example of the process showing how the scores “will” be calculated. Step one of the explanatory chart stated that the Agency would calculate a total point score for each response. Step two stated that “[t]he total point scores will be used to rank the responses by an evaluator. . . .” Next, the rankings by the evaluator are averaged to determine the average rank for each respondent. This average ranking is critical because ranking is how the ITN said the Agency would select respondents for negotiation and how the Agency did select respondents for negotiation. The step two and step three charts, reproduced below, demonstrate that the ITN contemplated an evaluation process in which each response was to be evaluated in its entirety by three different evaluators, or maybe less than three, but indisputably in its entirety by those who evaluated it. This did not happen. Step 2 The total point scores will be used to rank the responses by evaluator (Response with the highest number of points = 1, second highest = 2, etc.). POINTS SUMMARY Evaluator A Evaluator B Evaluator C Evaluator D Respondent 446 Respondent 396 Respondent 311 Respondent 413 Respondent 425 Respondent 390 Respondent 443 Respondent 449 Respondent 397 Respondent 419 Respondent 389 Respondent 435 Respondent 410 Respondent 388 Respondent 459 Respondent 325 RANKING SUMMARY Evaluator A Evaluator B Evaluator C Evaluator D Respondent 1 1 Respondent 1 2 Respondent 1 4 Respondent 3 Respondent 2 2 Respondent 2 3 Respondent 2 2 Respondent 1 Respondent 3 4 Respondent 3 1 Respondent 3 3 Respondent 2 Respondent 4 3 Respondent 4 4 Respondent 4 1 Respondent 4 c) Step 3 An average rank will be calculated for each response for all the evaluators. Respondent 1 1+2+4+3=10÷4=2.5 Respondent 2 2+3+2+1=8÷4=2.0 Respondent 3 4+1+3+2=10÷4=2.5 Respondent 4 3+4+1+4=12÷4=3.0 PROVIDER SERVICE NETWORK PROVISIONS Florida law permits a PSN to limit services provided to a target population “based on age, chronic disease state, or medical condition of the enrollee.” This allows a PSN to offer a specialty plan. For each region, the eligible plan requirements of section 409.974(1) state, “At least one plan must be a provider service network if any provider service networks submit a responsive bid.” Section 409.974(3) says: “Participation by specialty plans shall be subject to the procurement requirements of this section. The aggregate enrollment of all specialty plans in a region may not exceed 10 percent of the total enrollees of that region.” The ITN addressed those requirements. The Negotiation Process section of Attachment A, Instructions and Special Conditions, says: The Agency intends to invite the following number of respondents to negotiation: Comprehensive Plans The top four (4) ranking Comprehensive Plans. Long-term Care Plus Plans The top two (2) ranking Long-term Care Plus Plans Managed Medical Assistance Plans The top two (2) ranking Managed Medical Assistance Plans Specialty Managed Medical Assistance Plans The top two (2) ranking Specialty Managed Medical Assistance Plans per specialty population. If there are no provider service networks included in the top ranked respondents listed above, the Agency will invite the highest ranked PSN(s) to negotiations in order to fulfill the requirements of Section 409.974(1), Florida Statutes and Section 409.981(1), Florida Statutes. Emphasis supplied. The ITN specifications in Section D.7, titled Number of Awards, state as follows about Specialty Plan awards: 7. Number of Awards In accordance with Sections 409.966, 409.974, and 409.981, Florida Statutes, the Agency intends to select a limited number of eligible Managed Care Plans to provide services under the SMMC program in Region 10. The Agency anticipates issuing the number of Contract awards for Region 10 as described in Table 5, SMMC Region, below, excluding awards to Specialty MMA Plans. Table 5 SMMC Region Region Total Anticipated Contract Awards Region 10 4 If a respondent is awarded a Contract for multiple regions, the Agency will issue one (1) Contract to include all awarded regions. The Agency will award at least one (1) Contract to a PSN provided a PSN submits a responsive reply and negotiates a rate acceptable to the Agency. The Agency, at its sole discretion, shall make this determination. A respondent that is awarded a Contract as a Comprehensive Plan is determined to satisfy the requirements in Section 409.974, Florida Statutes and Section 409.981, Florida Statutes and shall be considered an awardee of an MMA Contract and a LTC Contract. The Agency will issue one (1) Contract to reflect all awarded populations in all awarded regions. In addition to the number of Contracts awarded in this region, additional Contracts may be awarded to Specialty Plans that negotiate terms and conditions determined to be the best value to the State and negotiate a rate acceptable to the Agency. The Agency, at its sole discretion, shall make this determination. The Agency reserves the right to make adjustments to the enrollee eligibility and identification criteria proposed by a Specialty Plan prior to Contract award in order to ensure that the aggregate enrollment of all awarded Specialty Plans in a region will not exceed ten percent (10%) of the total enrollees in that region, in compliance with Section 409.974(3), Florida Statutes. If a respondent is awarded a Contract as a Specialty Plan and another plan type, the Agency will issue one (1) Contract to include all awarded populations in all awarded regions. A prospective vendor asked about the interplay of Specialty Plan options and the PSN requirements. The question and the answer provided in Addendum 2 follow: Q. Please clarify the number of PSN awards per region and how PSN awards will be determined based on the PSN's plan type (e.g., Comprehensive, LTC Plus, MMA, Specialty). As you know, Sections 409.974 and 409.981, Florida Statutes require one MMA PSN and one LTC PSN award per region (assuming a PSN is responsive) and the Agency has stated that an award to a Comprehensive Plan PSN will meet the requirements of both statutes. However, can the Agency further clarify whether other types of PSNs would meet the statutory requirements? Specifically, would a PSN LTC Plus award meet the requirements of Section 409.981, Florida Statutes? Similarly, would an award to a Specialty Plan PSN meet the requirements of Section 409.974, Florida Statutes? A. See Attachment A Instructions and Special Conditions, Section D Response Evaluations, and Contract Award, Sub-Section 7 Number of Awards. Yes, a PSN LTC Plus award would meet the requirements of Section 409.981(2). A Specialty Plan PSN would not meet the requirements of Section 409.974(1). The only reasonable interpretation of this answer is that Specialty Plan PSNs do not satisfy the requirement to contract with a responsive PSN imposed by section 409.974. None of the prospective vendors, including Community, challenged this clarification. EVALUATION PROCESS THE EVALUATORS The Agency selected 11 people to evaluate the proposals. The Agency assigned each person a number used to identify who was assigned to which task and to track performance of evaluation tasks. The procurement officer sent the evaluators a brief memo of instructions. It provided dates; described logistics of evaluation; emphasized the importance of independent evaluation; and prohibited communicating about the ITN and the proposals with anyone other than the procurement office. The Agency also conducted an instructional session for evaluators. Evaluator 1, Marie Donnelly: During the procurement, Ms. Donnelly was the Agency’s Chief of the Bureau of Medicaid Quality. She held this position for five years before resigning. This bureau bore responsibility for ensuring that the current SMMC plans met their contract requirements for quality and quality improvement measures. Her role specifically included oversight of Specialty Plans. Evaluator 2, Erica Floyd Thomas: Ms. Thomas is the chief of the Bureau of Medicaid Policy. She has worked for the Agency since 2001. Her Medicaid experience includes developing policies for hospitals, community behavioral health, residential treatment, and contract oversight. Before serving as bureau chief, she served as an Agency administrator from 2014 through 2017. Ms. Thomas oversaw the policy research and development process for all Medicaid medical, behavioral, dental, facility, and clinic coverage policies to ensure they were consistent with the state Plan and federal Medicaid requirements. Evaluator 3, Rachel LaCroix, Ph.D.: Dr. LaCroix is an administrator in the Agency’s Performance Evaluation and Research Unit. She has worked for the Agency since 2003. All her positions have been in the Medicaid program. Dr. LaCroix has served in her current position since 2011. She works with the performance measures and surveys that the current SMMC providers report to the Agency. Dr. LaCroix is a nationally recognized expert on healthcare quality metrics like HEDIS. She is also an appointee on the National Association of Medicaid Directors’ task force for national performance measures. Evaluator 4, Damon Rich: Mr. Rich has worked for the Agency since April 2009. He is the chief of the Agency’s Bureau of Recipient and Provider Assistance. This bureau interacts directly with AHCA’s current SMMC care providers about any issues they have, and with Medicaid recipients, usually about their eligibility or plan enrollment. Before Mr. Rich was a bureau chief, he worked as a field office manager for the Agency. Mr. Rich’s experience as bureau chief and field office manager includes oversight of the current SMMC Specialty Plans. Evaluator 5. Eunice Medina: Ms. Medina is the chief of the Agency’s Bureau of Medicaid Plan Management, which includes a staff of over 60 individuals, who manage the current SMMC contracts. Her experience and duties essentially encompass all aspects of the current SMMC plans. Ms. Medina started working with the Agency in 2014. Evaluator 6, Devona “DD” Pickle: Ms. Pickle most recently joined the Agency in 2011. She also worked for the Agency from November 2008 through November 2010. Ms. Pickle’s Agency experience all relates in some way to the Medicaid program. Since March 2013, Ms. Pickle has served as an administrator over managed care policy and contract development in the Bureau of Medicaid Policy. Her job duties include working with the current SMMC contractors. Ms. Pickle is also a Florida licensed mental health counselor. Evaluator 7, Tracy Hurd-Alvarez: Ms. Hurd-Alvarez has worked for the Agency’s Medicaid program since 1997. Since 2014, she has been a field office manager, overseeing compliance monitoring for all the current SMMC contractors. Before assuming her current position, Ms. Hurd-Alvarez implemented the LTC SMMC program. Evaluator 8, Gay Munyon: Ms. Munyon is currently the Chief of the Bureau of Medicaid Fiscal Agent Operations. Ms. Munyon began working with the Agency in April 2013. Ms. Munyon’s bureau oversees fulfillment of the Agency’s contract with the current SMMC fiscal agent. Her unit’s responsibilities include systems maintenance and modifications and overseeing the fiscal agent, which answers phone calls, processes claims, and processes applications. Ms. Munyon has 25 years of experience working with the Medicaid program. Evaluator 9, Laura Noyes: Ms. Noyes started working for the Agency in April 2011. Her years of Agency experience all relate to the Medicaid program, including overseeing six current comprehensive managed care plans by identifying trends in contractual non-compliance. Evaluator 10, Brian Meyer: Mr. Meyer is a CPA, who has worked for the Agency in the Medicaid program since 2011. He is currently chief of the Bureau of Medicaid Data Analytics. Mr. Meyer’s primary responsibility is overseeing the capitation rates for the current SMMC contractors. His experience includes Medicaid plan financial statement analysis, surplus requirement calculation analysis and, in general, all types of financial analysis necessary to understand financial performance of the state’s Medicaid plans. Evaluator 11, Ann Kaperak: Since April 2015, Ms. Kaperak has served as an administrator in the Agency’s Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity. Ms. Kaperak’s unit oversees the fraud and abuse efforts of the current SMMC plans. She also worked for the Medicaid program from November 2012 through May 2014. Ms. Kaperak worked as a regulatory compliance manager for Anthem/Amerigroup’s Florida Medicaid program between May 2014 and April 2015. Positive and Community challenge the Agency’s plan selections by questioning the qualifications of the evaluators. The first part of their argument is that the evaluators did not have sufficient knowledge about HIV/AIDS and its treatment. The evidence does not prove the theory. For instance, Positive’s argument relies upon criticizing the amount of clinical experience evaluators had managing patients with HIV/AIDS. That approach minimizes the fact that the managed care plan characteristics involve so much more than disease- specific considerations. For instance, many of the components require determining if the respondent provided required documents, verifying conflict of interest documents, management structure, quality control measures, and the like. General SRCs asked for things like dispute resolution models (SRC 16), claims processing information (SRC 17), and fraud and abuse compliance plans (SRC 31). MMA SRCs included criteria, like telemedicine (SRC 4), demonstrated progress obtaining executed provider agreements (SRC 6), and a credentialing process (SRC 12). Specialty SRCs included criteria like copies of contracts for managed care for the proposed specialty population (SRC 1), specific and detailed criteria defining the proposed specialty population (SRC 4), and the like. The evidence does not prove that disease-specific experience is necessary to evaluate responses to these and other SRCs. SRC 6 involving HEDIS data and SRC 14 involving CAHPS data are two good examples. They required respondents to input data into a spreadsheet. All the evaluators had to do was determine what those numbers showed. Evaluation did not require any understanding of disease or how the measures were created. All the evaluator had to know was the number in the spreadsheet. The second part of the evaluator qualification criticisms is that the evaluators did not give adequate weight to some responses. Positive and Community just disagree with the measures requested and the evaluation of them. They conclude from that disagreement that the evaluators’ qualifications were deficient. The argument is not persuasive. The last sentence of paragraph 69 of Positive’s proposed recommended order exemplifies the criticisms of Positive and Community of the evaluators’ qualifications. It states, “The fact that PHC [Positive] was ranked last among competing HIV plans shows that the SRC evaluators did not understand enough about managing individuals with HIV/AIDs to score its proposal competently.” The argument is circular and “ipse dixit”. It does not carry the day. The collective knowledge and experience of the evaluators, with a total of 128 years of Medicaid experience, made them capable of reasonably evaluating the managed care plan proposals, including the Specialty plan proposals. The record certainly does not prove otherwise. EVALUATION PROCESS The Agency assigned the evaluators to the SRCs that it determined they were qualified to evaluate and score. The Agency did not assign entire responses to an evaluator for review. Instead it elected a piecemeal review process assigning various evaluators to various sections, the SRCs of each response. Paragraph 30 of the Agency’s proposed recommended order describes this decision as follows: Although the ITN had contemplated ranking each vendor by evaluator, based on an example in the ITN, such ranking presumed a process where all evaluators scored all or nearly all of the responses to the ITN, which had occurred in the procurement five years ago. In this procurement, each evaluator reviewed only a subset of SRCs based on their knowledge, and experience; therefore, ranking by evaluator was not logical because each had a different maximum point score. The initial SRC scoring assignments were: General SRCs 1 through 4, LTC SRCs 1 and 2, and Specialty SRC 1: Marie Donnelly, Laura Noyes, and Brian Meyer. General SRCs 5 through 8, MMA SRCs 1 through 7, LTC SRCs 3 and 4, and Specialty SRCs 1 and 2: Marie Donnelly, Erica Floyd- Thomas, and Rachel LaCroix. General SRCs 9 through 14, MMA SRCs 8 through 11, LTC SRCs 5 through 7, and Specialty SRC 4: Damon Rich, Eunice Medina, and DD Pickle. General SRCs 15 through 17, MMA SRCs 12 and 13, and LTC SRCs 8 through 10: Damon Rich, Tracy Hurd-Alvarez, Gay Munyon. General SRCs 18 through 25, MMA SRCs 14 through 20, LTC SRCs 11 and 12, and Specialty SRC 5: Erica Floyd-Thomas, Eunice Medina, and DD Pickle. General SRCs 26 through 33 and LTC SRC 13: Gay Munyon, Ann Kaperak, and Brian Meyer. General SRCs 34 through 36 and MMA SRC 21: Marie Donnelly, Rachel LaCroix, and Tracy Hurd-Alvarez. The ranking process presented in the ITN and described in paragraphs 62-64, contemplated ranking each respondent by evaluator. The Agency carried this process over from an earlier procurement. In this procurement, despite what the ITN said, the Agency assigned responsibilities so that each evaluator reviewed only a subset of SRCs. Therefore, the ranking of responses by evaluator presented in the ITN could not work. It was not even possible because no one evaluator reviewed a complete response and because each SRC had a different maximum point score. Instead, the Agency, contrary to the terms of the ITN, ranked proposals by averaging the “total point scores” assigned by all of the evaluators. The Agency considered issuing an addendum advising the parties of the change. The addendum would have informed the respondents and provided them an opportunity to challenge the change. The Agency elected not to issue an addendum. EVALUATION AND SCORING The evaluators began scoring on November 6, 2017, with a completion deadline of December 29, 2017. The 11 evaluators had to score approximately 230 separate responses to the ITNs. The evaluators had to score 67,175 separate items to complete the scoring for all responses for all regions for all types of plans. No one at the Agency evaluated how much time it should take to score a particular item. None of the parties to this proceeding offered persuasive evidence to support a finding that scoring any particular item would or should take a specific length of time or that scoring all of the responses would or should take a specific length of time. Evaluators scored the responses in conference room F at the Agency’s headquarters. This secure room was the exclusive location for evaluation and scoring. Each evaluator had a dedicated workspace equipped with all tools and resources necessary for the task. The workspaces included a computer terminal for each evaluator. The system allowed evaluators to review digital copies of the ITN and proposals and to enter evaluation points in spreadsheets created for the purpose of recording scores. Evaluators also had access to hard copies of the proposals and the ITN. The Agency required evaluators to sign in and to sign out. The sign-in and sign-out sheets record the significant amount of time the evaluators spent evaluating proposals. Evaluators were not permitted to communicate with each other about the responses. To minimize distractions, the Agency prohibited cell phones, tablets and other connected devices in the room. The Agency also authorized and encouraged the evaluators to delegate their usual responsibilities. Agency proctors observed the room and evaluators throughout the scoring process. They were available to answer general and procedural questions and to ensure that the evaluators signed in and signed out. A log sheet documented how much time each evaluator spent in the scoring conference room. Some evaluators took extensive notes. For example, Ms. Median took over 200 pages of notes. Similarly, Ms. Munyon took nearly 400 pages of typewritten notes. The evaluators worked hard. None, other than Dr. LaCroix, testified that they did not have enough time to do their job. The computer system also automatically tracked the evaluators’ progress. Tracking reports showed the number of items assigned to each evaluator and the number of scoring items completed. The first status report was generated on December 8, 2017, approximately halfway through the scheduled scoring. At that time, only 28 percent of the scoring items were complete. Ms. Barrett usually ran the status reports in the morning. She made them available to the evaluators to review. The pace of evaluation caused concern about timely completion and prompted discussions of ways to accelerate scoring. Because it was clear that the majority of the evaluators would not complete scoring their SRCs by December 29, 2017, the Agency extended the scoring deadline to January 12, 2018. It also extended the hours for conference room use. Most respondents filed proposals for more than one type of plan and more than one region. This fact combined with the provision in the instructions saying that all statewide SRC responses must be identical for each region and that scores would transfer to each applicable region’s score sheets, enabled evaluators to score many SRCs just once. The system would then auto-populate the scores to the same SRC for all proposals by that respondent. This time saving measure permitted scoring on many of the items to be almost instantaneous after review of the first response to an SRC. The fact that so many respondents submitted proposals for so many regions and types of plans provided the Agency another opportunity for time-saving. The Agency loaded Adobe Pro on the evaluators’ computers as a timesaving measure. This program allowed the evaluators to compare a bidder’s Comprehensive Plan Proposal to the same company’s regional and Specialty Plan proposals. If the Adobe Pro comparison feature showed that the proposal response was the same for each plan, the Agency permitted evaluators to score the response once and assign the same score for each item where the respondent provided the same proposal. This speeded scoring. It, however, meant that for SRCs where evaluators did this, that they were not reviewing the SRC response in the specific context of the specialty plan population, each of which had specific and limited characteristics that made them different from the broader General and MMA plan populations. This is significant because so many SRCs required narrative responses where context would matter. There is no Specialty SRCs A-4 instruction requirement for specialty plans analogous to the requirement that responses for statewide SRCs must be identical for each region. In other words, the instructions do not say all SRCs marked as statewide must be identical for each specialty plan proposal and that the Agency will evaluate each Statewide SRC once and transfer the score to each applicable Specialty Plan score. In fact, according to the procurement officer, the Agency expected that evaluators would separately evaluate and score the statewide SRCs for Comprehensive Plans and for Specialty Plans, even if the same bidder submitted them. Despite the Agency’s expectation and the absence of an authorizing provision in the ITN, many evaluators, relying on the Adobe Pro tool, copied the SRC scores they gave to a respondent’s comprehensive plan proposal to its specialty plan proposal if the respondent submitted the same response to an SRC for a Comprehensive Plan and a Specialty Plan. For instance, Ms. Thomas (Evaluator 2) and Ms. Munyon (Evaluator 8) did this to save time. Ms. Donnelly (Evaluator 1) did this even when the comprehensive and specialty responses were not identical. This does not amount to the independent evaluation of the responses pledged by the ITN. On separate days, Evaluator 1 scored 1,315 items, 954 items, 779 items and 727 items. On separate days, Evaluator 2 scored 613 items, 606 items, 720 items, 554 items and 738 items. Evaluator 4 scored 874 items on one day. Evaluator 5 scored 813 items in one day. Evaluator 6 scored 1,001 items in one day. Evaluator 8 scored 635 items in one day. The record does not identify the items scored. It also does not permit determining how many of the item scores resulted from auto-population or assignment of scores based upon previous scoring of an identical response. It bears repeating, however, that the record does not support any finding on how long scoring the response to one SRC or an entire response could reasonably be expected to take. Even with the extended scoring period and time-saving measures, the Agency concluded that Evaluator 3 would not be able to finish all of the SRCs assigned to her. Rather than extend the deadline for scoring a second time, the Agency decided to reassign the nine of Evaluator 3’s SRCs that she had not begun scoring to two other evaluators. The Agency did not include scores of other SRCs for which Evaluator 3 had not completed scoring. The Agency only counted Evaluator 3’s scores for an SRC if she scored the SRC for everyone. The result was that only two people scored nine of the Specialty Plan SRCs. The Agency did not reassign all of Evaluator 3’s SRCs’. It only reassigned the SRCs to evaluators who were qualified to evaluate the items, who were not already assigned those items to score, and who had already finished or substantially completed their own evaluations. The decision to reassign the SRCs was not based on any scoring that had already been completed. The Agency did not allow changes to data submitted by any of the vendors. It allowed vendors to exchange corrupted electronic files for ones which could be opened and allowed vendors to exchange electronic files to match up with the paper copies that had been submitted. The Agency allowed Community to correct its submission where it lacked a signature on its transmittal letter and allowed Community to exchange an electronic document that would not open. It did not allow Community to change its reported HEDIS scores, which were submitted in the decimal form required by the instructions. Community erred in the numbers that it reported. There is no evidence showing that other vendors received a competitive or unfair advantage over Community in the Agency’s review of the SMI Specialty Plan submission for Region 10. There was no evidence that the Agency allowed any other vendors to change any substantive information in their submittals for that proposed specialty in that region. HEIDIS ISSUES Positive asserts that Simply’s proposal is non- responsive because Simply submitted HEDIS data from the general Medicaid population in response to SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14. Positive contends that Simply obtained a competitive advantage by supplying non-HIV/AIDS HEDIS data in response to SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 because HIV/AIDS patients are generally a sicker group and require more care and because some HEDIS measures cannot be reported for an HIV/AIDS population. HEDIS stands for Healthcare Effectiveness and Data Information Set and is a set of standardized performance measures widely used in the healthcare industry. The instructions for both SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 provide, in relevant part: The respondent shall describe its experience in achieving quality standards with populations similar to the target population described in this solicitation. The respondent shall include in table format, the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible), the respondent’s results for the HEDIS measures specified below for each of the last two (2) years (CY 2015/HEDIS 2016 and CY 2016/HEDIS 2017) for the respondent’s three (3) largest Medicaid Contracts (measured by number of enrollees). If the respondent does not have HEDIS results for at least three (3) Medicaid Contracts, the respondent shall provide commercial HEDIS measures for the respondent’s largest Contracts. If the Respondent has Florida Medicaid HEDIS results, it shall include the Florida Medicaid experience as one (1) of three (3) states for the last two (2) years. (JE 1 at 75 (SRC 6); JE 1 at 158 (MMA SRC 14)). SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 instruct respondents to provide HEDIS measures for “the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible).” Id.. TANF, ABD, and dual eligible are eligibility classifications for the Medicaid population. The Agency sought information regarding the target Medicaid-eligible population, even from respondents proposing a Specialty Plan, because Specialty Plans are required to serve all of the healthcare needs of their recipients, not just the needs related to the criteria making those recipients eligible for the Specialty Plan. Following the instructions in SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14, Simply provided HEDIS data from the Medicaid-eligible population for its three largest Medicaid contracts as measured by the total number of enrollees. For the requested Florida HEDIS data, Simply utilized legacy HEDIS data from Amerigroup Florida, Inc., a Comprehensive Plan. Amerigroup and Simply had merged in October of 2017. Therefore, at the time of submission of Simply’s proposal, the HEDIS data from Amerigroup Florida was the data from Simply’s largest Medicaid contract in Florida for the period requested by the SRCs. Positive asserts that the Agency impermissibly altered scoring criteria after the proposals were submitted when the Agency corrected technical issues within a HEDIS Measurement Tool spreadsheet. SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 required the submission of numeric data for the requested HEDIS performance measures. To simplify submission of the numeric data for the requested HEDIS performance measures, the Agency required respondents to utilize a HEDIS Measurement Tool spreadsheet. The evaluation criteria for SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 provided that respondents will be awarded points if the reported HEDIS measures exceed the national or regional mean for such performance measures. Some respondents, including Positive, entered “N/A,” “small denominator,” or other text inputs into the HEDIS Measurement Tool. During the evaluation and scoring process, the Agency discovered that if a respondent input any text into the HEDIS Measurement Tool, the tool would assign random amounts of points, even though respondents had not input measureable, numeric data. The Agency reasonably resolved the problem by removing any text and inserting a zero in place of the text. The correction of the error in the HEDIS Measurement Tool prevented random points from being awarded to respondents and did not alter scores in any way contrary to the ITN. It was reasonable and fair to all respondents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order rejecting all r esponses to the ITNs to provide a Medicaid Managed Care plan for patients with HIV/AIDS in Regions 10 and 11. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order inviting Community to negotiate to provide Medicaid Managed Care plan in Region 10 for patients with serious mental illness. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order inviting Community to negotiate to provide a Medicaid Managed Care plan in Region 10 for patients with serious mental illness. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order inviting Community to negotiate to provide a Medicaid Managed Care plan in Region 10 for c hild w elfare specialty services. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order awarding Wellcare of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Staywell Health Plan of Florida, a contract for a specialty Medicaid Managed Care plan for patients with Serious Mental Illness in Region 10. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the Petition in Case No. 18-3513. DONE AND ENTERED this day of , , in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of , .
