The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of skilled nursing facilities in Florida pursuant to Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 59A-4, Florida Administrative Code. At all times material hereto, Oakwood was licensed by Petitioner as a skilled nursing facility. Oakwood operates a 120-bed nursing home located in Eustis, Florida. From June 19 through July 1, 2002, Dorothy Mueller, who at the time was employed by AHCA as a Registered Nurse Specialist, conducted a complaint investigation at Oakwood. She received the complaint from Florida Protective Services of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Ms. Mueller is Surveyor Minimum Qualification Test (SMQT) qualified. She is currently licensed as a registered nurse in Florida but retired from AHCA in December 2002. Ms. Mueller began the complaint investigation on June 19, 2002. She announced her visit to the facility's administrator, observed residents, interviewed staff, and reviewed records. She requested a sampling of residents' records. The sample she reviewed included the record of Resident D.R. During the course of the complaint investigation, Ms. Mueller did not interview Resident D.R. as she had already been discharged from the facility. Ms. Mueller examined Resident D.R.'s care plans, assessments, nursing notes, and wound care. Nurse Mueller was specifically looking for whether anyone at Respondent's facility was actually looking at the skin of Resident D.R.'s heels because Resident D.R. was wearing TED hose. Because Resident D.R. was at risk for developing pressure sores, Ms. Mueller was concerned that she found no specific preventative measures taken by the facility to help prevent the development of pressure sores on Resident D.R.'s heels.1/ In determining her findings, Ms. Mueller took into consideration the findings of the person from DCFS who had filed the complaint that caused AHCA to send Ms. Mueller to investigate. Additionally, Ms. Mueller also took into consideration notes from Resident D.R.'s family physician and statements he made to her regarding the condition of Resident D.R.'s heels two days after her discharge from Oakwood.2/ Based on Ms. Mueller's findings during this complaint investigation, federal tag F224 was cited against Oakwood. Resident D.R. was admitted to Oakwood on February 24, 2002, following a four-day hospitalization for hip surgery due to a fall at her home which resulted in a hip fracture. Resident D.R.'s hospital records reveal the development of a skin ulcer in her sacral area the morning of February 23, 2002, and that the ulcer worsened before Resident D.R.'s discharge from the hospital on February 24, 2002. Upon admission to Oakwood, Resident D.R. was assessed by Dorothy Gilbert, a Registered Nurse employed by Oakwood. Nurse Gilbert's full skin assessment of Resident D.R. noted two skin ulcers on Resident D.R.'s sacral area with no other skin breakdown. Nurse Gilbert noted that Resident D.R.'s heels were "soft nonreddened." According to Nurse Gilbert, that notation meant that the skin on Resident D.R.'s heels was normal, intact, nonreddened and showed no deterioration. The nurse's assessment form contains a diagram of a person showing front and back with the following instruction: "Skin: Indicate on diagram below all body marks such as old or recent scar, bruise, discoloration, laceration, amputation, decubitus ulcer, and any other questionable marking(s) considered other than normal." Nurse Gilbert made detailed notations and drawings on the diagram indicating any and all skin breakdown of Resident D.R. The foot area of the diagram contained no notation or drawing indicating any skin breakdown on Resident D.R.'s feet upon admission to Oakwood. Another page of the nurse's assessment form is entitled "Braden Scale-For Predicting Pressure Sore Risk." Nurse Gilbert gave Resident D.R. a score of 14 which identified her to be at moderate risk for pressure sores or ulcers. She was at risk for skin breakdown over her entire body, not just her heels, and her care plan accounted for this. Resident D.R. was wearing TED hose at the time of admission and wore them throughout her stay. TED hose are anti- embolism stockings typically used following surgery to enhance blood flow and prevent clotting. Resident D.R. was a petite, elderly woman weighing 83 pounds. Appropriate assessments and interdisciplinary care plans were developed for Resident D.R., including for her existing skin ulcers also referred to as sores or wounds. During Resident D.R.'s stay at Oakwood, one of her existing sacral skin wounds improved and the other wound healed. She received daily wound treatment by the nurses on duty and the wound care nurse measured her ulcers and assessed her skin each Thursday. Cynthia Burbey is an Licensed Practical Nurse employed by Oakwood. She observed Resident D.R.'s heel condition usually every day when she gave her treatment for wound care on her coccyx, and on her shower days which occurred twice a week. While the Certified Nurses Assistants (CNAs) give showers to the residents, the nurses follow the bathing of the resident with a body check/body assessment. Nurse Burbey never saw any skin deterioration on Resident D.R.'s heels, including the day Resident D.R. was discharged. At the time of the discharge, Nurse Burbey did a body assessment from head to toe of Resident D.R. and did not observe any skin deterioration on Resident D.R.'s heels. The CNAs at Respondent's facility play a significant role in observing skin condition and are to report any change in skin condition to the nurses. In addition to their role in observing skin condition at bath time, the CNAs repositioned Resident D.R. every two hours and assisted her in and out of bed each day. She was completely dressed and undressed each day by her attending CNAs who would remove her TED hose and change them. Pressure on skin over bony areas is a primary cause of pressure ulcers or bed sores. Resident D.R. received a variety of services and devices during her stay at Oakwood aimed at reducing the likelihood of bed sores, including knee wedges for both her bed and wheelchair, calf pads for her wheelchair, a pressure reducing mattress, and physical therapy. Because of her petite size, the knee wedge used for her bed resulted in Resident D.R.'s heels being "floated" off her mattress. Resident D.R., also received physical therapy services including range of motion exercises while at Oakwood. The range of motion exercises for her lower extremities would have provided her therapists and restorative aids an opportunity to detect evidence of skin breakdown on her heels, because her heels were touched by the therapists or aides during these exercises. While Resident D.R. wore socks for these therapies, the therapists and aides saw no evidence of staining on her socks, which often happens from drainage from a heel wound, or any evidence that their touching her heels resulted in any pain to Resident D.R. The restorative aides provided Resident D.R. with range of motion exercises six days a week, including the day before her discharge from Respondent's facility. The initial nursing assessment indicating "heel soft, nonreddened" raised Ms. Mueller's concerns that there was no care specifically directed toward Resident D.R.'s heels. However, there is no competent evidence that Resident D.R. had heel wounds either upon admission or which developed during her stay at Oakwood. Accordingly, there was no reason for Oakwood to have a skin care plan specifically addressing Resident D.R.'s heels, particularly in light of the fact that Oakwood had a skin care plan in place for Resident D.R. which was followed. Further, during cross examination, when asked whether the phrase "heel soft nonreddened," was an indicator that Resident D.R. had a problem with her heel, she acknowledged, "I would have to answer yes and no to that." AHCA 's charge of failure to have due diligence taken to prevent, subsequently detect if the condition could not be prevented, and then provide appropriate care and treatment for avoidable bilateral pressure ulcers is based solely on hearsay evidence. AHCA's sole witness, the surveyor who conducted the complaint investigation, never observed Resident D.R. at any time, either in Respondent's facility or after her discharge. The evidence presented does not establish that Oakwood failed to have due diligence to prevent, subsequently detect if the condition could not be prevented, and then provide appropriate care and treatment for bilateral pressure sores. There is no competent proof that any heel sore developed on Resident D.R.'s heels while a resident at Oakwood. Moreover, the evidence shows that the nursing staff appropriately addressed the skin care needs of Resident D.R.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaints issued against Respondent, Oakwood Center. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS 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 21st day of March, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence presented the following facts are found: Petitioners each made application for a certificate of need under the provisions of Sections 381.493 through 381.497, Florida Statutes, 1975, which applications were submitted to the Bureau of Community Medical Facilities and accepted as complete by the bureau. Each application seeks a certificate of need for a third generation computerized axial tomography scanner (whole body unit) hereinafter referred to as a CAT scanner. There is presently in Jacksonville a head scanner installed at St. Vincent Hospital in November, 1975, and a whole body scanner at St. Luke's Hospital which has been in full operation since January, 1976. All three Petitioners are located in Jacksonville, Florida. The applications were processed by the appropriate Health Systems Agency. After due consideration the Health Systems Agency recommended that each of the three applications be granted. At the request of the Bureau of Community Medical Facilities, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, the State Hospital Advisory Council reviewed the applications and upheld the Health Systems Agency's determination that the three applications should be granted certificates of need. After consideration of the applications, the Health Systems Agency's recommendation the State Hospital Advisory Council's recommendation, Mr. Art Forehand, Administrator, Office of Community Medical Facilities, Respondent herein, notified each of the three Petitioners that their applications were not favorably considered. Mr. Forehand's notification set forth three reasons for the unfavorable consideration. Those were (1) lack of demonstrated need for the requested scanner, (2) failure of each application to demonstrate positive action toward containment of cost for services rendered to the public, and (3) lack of demonstrated unavailability, unaccessability, and inadequacy of like services within the Jacksonville area. At the time of his decision Mr. Forehand had no material or information available to him which was not available to the Health Systems Agency or the State Hospital Advisory Council at the time of their decision. At the time the three applications were denied Mr. Forehand felt that there did exist a need for one additional scanner in the Jacksonville area but he did not feel that he should bear the burden of deciding which one of the three applications should be granted and therefore all three were denied. Except for those matters set forth in Mr. Forehand's denial and noted above, none of the parties to this proceeding disputed that the criteria for determining need found in Section 101-1.03(c), F.A.C., were met. A study of computerized axial tomography with suggested criteria for review of certificate of need applications was conducted by the staff of the Health Systems Agency of Northeast Florida relative to the Duval County area. This study was published in April of 1976 and its findings appear to have been accepted by the Health Systems Agency. As one of its suggested criteria for determining need it found that a hospital or applicant should have a potential case load of at least 1,000 CAT scans per year. The study went on to project a potential case load for the three Petitioners herein. That projection for Baptist Memorial Hospital shows a a potential case load of 2,512 scans per year. The study noted that Baptist Memorial projected 1,300 scans for the first year during start up operations and 2,080 scans during the second and third years of their forecast. The study found that Riverside Hospital has a potential case load of 1,196 scans per year compared to their own projections of 1,432 scans per year. The study finally found that the University Hospital has a potential case load of 1,558 scans per year compared to their projection of 2,904. Testimony on behalf of the Respondent shows that in the opinion of Respondent full use of a CAT scanner is 10 scans per day on a 20-day work month working five days a week. As shown by unrebutted testimony the existing scanner at St. Luke's Hospital in Jacksonville is presently averaging 10 scans per day, five-days a week. Further, according to the evidence presented by Respondent, the existing scanner at St. Vincent is being utilized to at least 85 percent of its capacity. Respondent took the position at the hearing that when existing scanners are being used to 85 percent or more of their capacity a need exists for more equipment. Thus, it appears that using the criteria of utilization adhered to by Respondent, the existing CAT scanners in Jacksonville are being utilized to the extent that there is a need for additional scanners. University Hospital has 310 licensed beds and is the community hospital in Duval County with the responsibility of serving the indigent on an emergency and short term basis. It is the trauma center of the city and has the most active emergency room. It is also the major teaching hospital in Duval County. Respondent agrees that it has the greatest need of any hospital in Duval County for a CAT scanner. The University Hospital has approximately 300 visits per month to its emergency room. In the four months prior to the date of final hearing the hospital did 586 skull x-rays due to trauma. In the case of acute trauma patients frequently may not be moved from one hospital to another for the purpose of a CAT scan nor, in some cases, should other dangerous invasive techniques be used for diagnosis. Baptist Hospital has 567 licensed beds and is a major oncology center or cancer center and does a large amount of surgical cancer work in additional to radiation therapy. With the possible exception of University Hospital, Baptist Hospital is the largest pediatric hospital in the area. According to the testimony of the administrator of the hospital it would take 14 to 18 months after receipt of a certificate of need to have a CAT scanner in service. Riverside Hospital has 183 licensed beds. The hospital has been a specialty hospital since its establishment in 1908 and serves the Riverside Clinic. The hospital has approximately 200 specialized physicians, all board certified, on-staff. Riverside is a unique hospital because of its degree of specialty and its relationship to Riverside Clinic. Riverside Hospital does 100 percent of the Riverside Clinic's radiology work. Riverside Hospital has been known as an established diagnostic center. Witnesses for Riverside Hospital testified that if they were not able to have a CAT scanner their reputation and ability to provide first class service would be seriously diminished. CAT scanners represent a significant development in diagnostic medicine. They reduce the need for many dangerous, painful and costly injections of dye, air and radioactive isotopes required by some of the more traditional diagnostic procedures. The three most common tests displaced by CAT scanners are pneumoencephalography, angiography and radioactive isotope scanning. The first two of the foregoing are particularly expensive procedures and require hospitalization. At present, patients at the three Petitioner hospitals have to be transported to another facility in order to use a scanner. The transfer of an inpatient to another hospital for a scan may effectively consume the better part of a patient's day and may require an extra day of hospitalization. The cost of transportation, increased hospital stay and ancillary matters increase the actual cost to the Patient. Patients suffering from severe trauma or otherwise in a critical state, may not be transported out of a hospital to a scanner. All three of the Petitioners have an active neurological and neurosurgical staff and qualified radiologists. The unrebutted testimony indicates that, although CAT scanners are a new development whose potential has not yet been fully explored and whose development may not yet be final, they nevertheless have become an essential diagnostic tool of regular use.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), is designated as the state agency responsible for the administration of federal and state Medicaid funds, and is authorized by statute to provide payments for medical services. Respondent, Marvin H. Ledbetter, is a doctor of osteopathy who is enrolled as a general practitioner provider in the Medicaid Program. His professional office is in Ormond Beach, Florida where he is engaged in family practice. Under the Program, Ledbetter is assigned a provider number (48220-0) which is used to bill Medicaid for services rendered to Medicaid recipients. During calendar year 1981, which is the only time period in question, Ledbetter received $42,809 in Medicaid reimbursements from HRS, of which $28,062 related to fees for Medicaid hospital patients. The latter category of fees is at issue. In order to qualify for federal matching Medicaid funds HRS must meet certain federally-imposed requirements, including the establishment of a program integrity section designed to insure that all Medicaid services are medically necessary. If they are not, HRS is obliged to seek recoupment of funds paid to the provider. This proceeding involves an attempt by HRS to recoup certain funds paid to Ledbetter for hospital services. After providing medical services to various hospital patients, Ledbetter completed and sent in the necessary forms to obtain payment. As noted earlier, these payments totaled $28,062 during 1981. Upon receipt of the forms, HRS input the information from the forms into a computer data base, along with similar information from other Medicaid providers throughout the State. This information included, among other things, the number of admissions, number of discharges, amount paid for hospital services and length of stay. The retention of such data is necessary so that possible overpayments may be detected by HRS through the statistical analysis of claims submitted by a group of providers of a given type. Because Ledbetter's total discharges exceeded the average of other family physicians throughout the State, the computer generated a report which flagged Ledbetter for further review and examination. An HRS analyst conducted such a review of Ledbetter's records, and found his average hospital length of stay for patients to be acceptable when compared to the average physician in the State. This report was forwarded to the HRS peer review coordinator who randomly selected thirty of Ledbetter's patients from the computer, and obtained their patient charts (numbering sixty-eight). Such a statistical calculation is authorized by Rule 10C-7.6(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. A medical consultant employed by HRS then reviewed twelve of the sixty-eight charts and recommended the records be sent to a Peer Review Committee (PRC) for its review and recommendation. This committee is authorized by Rule 7C-7.61(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code serves under contract with HRS, and is composed of eight members of the Florida Osteopathic Medical Association. It is their responsibility to review the files of physicians whose Medicaid payments are questioned by HRS's program integrity section. When Ledbetter's records were forwarded to the PRC by HRS, the transmittal letter stated that a "study" of his records had been made, and that said study revealed "overutilization of inpatient hospital services" and "excessive lengths of stay." After a PRC review was conducted in early 1984, the records were returned to HRS with a notation that "mild overutilization" had occurred. According to informal guidelines used by the PRC, this meant that Ledbetter's overutilization fell within the range of 0 percent to 20 percent. HRS accepted these findings but for some reason initially determined that a 40 percent overutilization had occurred, and that Ledbetter was overpaid in 1981 by 40 percent for his hospital services. Finding this amount to be inconsistent with the mild overutilization guidelines, HRS arbitrarily added back two days to each patient's hospital stay, which decreased overutilization to 33.8 percent, or $9,505.06 in overpayments. By proposed agency action issued on May 18, 1984, it billed Ledbetter this amount, thereby precipitating the instant controversy. All of the patients in question were from the lower income category, and most were black. Their home conditions were generally less than desirable, and the ability of the parents to supply good nursing care to ill or sick children was in doubt. At the same time, in 1981 Ledbetter was working an average of 56 hours per week in the emergency room of a local hospital and devoted only minimal time to his family practice. Because of this Ledbetter's number of hospital admissions greatly exceeded the norm when compared to general practitioners who engaged in an office practice. Consequently, he received most of these patients through the emergency room rather than his office and was dealing with patients whose socioeconomic conditions were an important consideration. These factors must be taken into account in analyzing Ledbetter's patient records. HRS does not contend that Ledbetter failed to perform the services for which he was paid--rather, it questions only whether some of the admissions were medically necessary and whether some of the lengths of stay were too long. In this regard, conflicting expert testimony was offered by the parties concerning the amount of overutilization, if any. Expert testimony by two local doctors of osteopathy support a finding that only mild overutilization of admissions and lengths of stay occurred. This is corroborated by HRS's expert (Dr. Smith) and by the testimony of its "live" expert, Dr. Conn, who conceded that lengths of stay were only "a little bit too long." The more persuasive testimony also establishes that while mild overutilization falls within the range of 0 percent to 20 percent, 10 percent is an appropriate median in this proceeding. Using this yardstick, Ledbetter should reimburse HRS for 10 percent for his billings, or $2,806.20.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent repay petitioner $2,086.20 in excess Medicaid payments received for calendar year 1981 claims. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 1985.
