The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioners are entitled to additional benefits pursuant to the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner Della G. Sphaler (hereinafter "Petitioner") has been an employee of the State of Florida with health insurance coverage under the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan (hereinafter "the Plan"). The Plan is administered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. (hereinafter "Blue Cross/Blue Shield"), pursuant to an Administrative Services Agreement between the State and Blue Cross/Blue Shield. On or about November 14, 1989, Petitioner's doctor recommended that she be admitted to Humana Hospital-Palm Beaches for psychiatric services on an emergency basis. At the time, Petitioner knew that Humana was not a Preferred Patient Care Provider (hereinafter "PPC") under the Plan. A PPC provider has an agreement with Blue Cross/Blue Shield to provide health care services at set fees to individuals under the Plan. The Plan provides higher benefits when PPC providers are used. Petitioner told her doctor that Humana was a non-PPC provider and that she did not want to go to a hospital unless her bill would be paid by her insurance. However, her doctor wanted her to go to Humana specifically, and she agreed. Thereafter, Petitioner and William Sphaler (hereinafter "husband") went to Humana Hospital. They spoke to an employee at Humana regarding Petitioner's insurance coverage under the Plan, and that unidentified employee telephoned Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Petitioner was not a party to the conversation between the Humana Hospital admissions clerk and the unidentified employee of Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and her husband heard none of the conversation. Further, neither Petitioner nor her husband personally made any contact with Blue Cross/Blue Shield or Respondent regarding the existence or extent of any insurance coverage under the Plan if Petitioner were admitted at Humana. After her conversation, the clerk at Humana told Petitioner that Blue Cross/Blue Shield would pay 80 percent for the first three days of admission and 100 percent thereafter, according to Petitioner's and her husband's testimony. Petitioner was admitted to Humana on November 14, 1989, with an admitting diagnosis of major depression. She remained there until her discharge on December 8, 1989. As a result of the phone call from Humana, on November 14, 1989, the Blue Cross/Blue Shield computer generated a form letter to Petitioner advising her that under the Hospital Stay Certification component of the Plan Petitioner's emergency hospital stay was certified for three days and that contact by the hospital would be necessary to recertify the admission for additional days. That letter further advised as follows: We remind you that the review was limited to determining the appropriate length of stay for the emergency admitting diagnosis and did not question medical necessity. We further remind you that payment of benefits is still subject to the terms of your Health Insurance Policy. Neither Petitioner nor her husband contacted Blue Cross/Blue Shield to verify or ascertain benefits upon their receipt of that letter. Petitioner's total bill for her stay at Humana was $17,652.53. The bill was primarily for room charges. Humana charged $463 a day for eleven days in a semi-private room and $713 a day for an additional thirteen days in a semi- private room. Blue Cross/Blue Shield paid a total of $6,751.50 of Petitioner's hospital bill. That payment covered portions of Petitioner's bill for the entire stay. Since Humana is a non-PPC hospital, payment for services is controlled by Section II.A.1. of the Plan's Benefit Document, amended effective July 1, 1988, which covers non-PPC hospital inpatient room and board services as follows: When confined to a semi-private or private room or ward, 80 percent of the hospital's average semi-private room rate shall be paid but not to exceed an actual payment of one-hundred and fifty-two dollars ($152.00) per day. The Benefit Document also establishes deductibles under the Plan in Section VI.C. as follows: "Two hundred dollars ($200.00) per admission to a non-PPC provider hospital, specialty institution or residential facility." The Hospital Stay Certification component of the Plan, like the Pre- admission Certification component, if complied with, does not increase the benefits payable under the Plan. Rather, Section XXIV.C. of the Benefit Document provides that the benefits set forth in Section II.A. will be paid if an elective admission to a non-PPC hospital is certified and will not be paid if the admission is not certified. Since Petitioner obtained certification, she was entitled to benefits as provided in Section II.A., i.e., a maximum of $152 per day for room charges. Blue Cross/Blue Shield properly calculated and paid the benefits to which Petitioner is entitled. Petitioner is entitled to no additional benefits under the Plan.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioners' claim for additional benefits for the November 14, 1989, Humana hospitalization. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 5th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 93-5971 Petitioners' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4 and 6 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioners' proposed finding of fact numbered 5 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-5 and 8-10 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 6 has been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 7, 11, and 12 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: John P. Marinelli, Esquire John P. Marinelli, P.A. 1615 Forum Place Suite 4-B, Barristers Building West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire Chief, Benefit Programs and Legal Services Division of State Employees' Insurance 2002 Old St. Augustine Road, B-12 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-4876 William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue is what is the correct amount of workers’ compensation reimbursement to Largo Medical Center for emergency services rendered to patient M.C. for a work-related injury?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Guarantee, is a carrier within the meaning of Subsections 440.02(4) and (38), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602(1)(w). Respondent, the Department, has exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to the reimbursement of health care providers by carriers for medical services rendered to injured workers. § 440.13(7) and (11)(c), Fla. Stat. Intervenor, Largo, is a health care provider within the meaning of Subsection 440.13(1)(h), Florida Statutes. Largo is an acute care hospital located in Largo, Pinellas County, Florida. On July 25, 2009, Largo provided emergency services to patient M.C., a 32-year-old female, who was injured at her place of work. M.C. was examined by Largo’s emergency department physician. She received two Computed Tomography (“CT”) scans without contrast dye, one of the brain and one of the cervical spine. She also received a pregnancy test and an X-ray of her lumbar spine. The results of these diagnostic tests were negative. M.C. was given a cervical collar to wear, and was discharged. Largo’s total charges for M.C.’s outpatient emergency services were $7,885.05. Largo submitted its claim for reimbursement using the standard “uniform billing” form, UB-04. The UB-04 sets out each service provided to M.C., the individual charge for each service, and the total charge. The individual services on the UB-04 submitted for patient M.C. are listed as follows: urine pregnancy test; X-ray; CT scan of the cervical spine; a three-dimensional rendering of the image and its interpretation; the CT of the brain; and the emergency department visit itself. Largo’s claim was received by MCMC, an organization described as a “third-party administrator,” and was referred in turn to Qmedtrix. Qmedtrix is a medical bill-review agent located in Portland, Oregon. Qmedtrix performs bill review by referral from carriers and third-party administrators, and performed a bill review for Guarantee of the bill submitted by Largo. For its compensation, Qmedtrix is paid a percentage of the difference, if any, between the amount billed by the facility and the amount paid by the carrier. Following Qmedtrix’ review, Largo received a check from Guarantee in the amount of $5,287.97, along with an “Explanation of Medical Benefits” review (EOBR), which is required to be sent along with the bill payment. For reasons that are not clear, there are two EOBRs in evidence for this claim. One (Petitioner’s Exhibit 4) has the logo “MCMC” in the upper left hand corner and is substantially more formal. The other (Largo’s Exhibit 3) does not have any identifying logo, but the following statement appears on page two: “For questions regarding this review, please call MCMC at 1-888-350-1150.” It is not clear why MCMC would have generated two different EOBRs for the same claim, but, in any event, the allowed amounts for the six components of Largo’s charges and the total payment amount, $5,287.97, is the same on both EOBRs. The EOBR that is Largo’s Exhibit 3 sets out the six individual components of Largo’s claim, and indicates that the first five were approved for reimbursement at 75 percent of the charge billed by Largo. The sixth component is the charge for the emergency department visit itself. For that charge, Largo billed $1,365.38, of which 75 per cent would be $1,024.04. The EOBR indicates the corresponding 25 percent discount from billed charges ($341.35) under a column entitled “MRA,” and indicates further that an additional reduction of $625.81 was applied, leaving an approved payment of $398.22 for the emergency room component of the claim. The additional reduction of $625.81 is under a column entitled “Ntwk Redc,” and the narrative explanation under the total payment states, ”The network discount shown above is based on your contract with the network.” Guarantee conceded at hearing that there was no contract applicable to the claim. The EOBR also has references to “convalescent care” and “PIP days,” neither of which apply to Largo’s claim. The EOBR that is Guarantee’s Exhibit 4 has one column entitled “Qualify Code.” In completing an EOBR, insurers must select a code from a list of approximately 50 codes found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602(5)(o)2., which identifies the reason for the disallowance or adjustment. For the emergency room visit, the EOBR shows a code of 82, which is explained as follows: “Payment adjusted: Payment modified pursuant to carrier charge analysis.” Both EOBRs indicate a “procedure code” of 99283. The UB-04 submitted by Largo used code 99284. These codes are among five codes that are used by hospitals to bill emergency department visits based on “level” of intensity rendered. These codes are taken from the American Medical Association’s Current Procedural Terminology (or CPT), a coding system developed for physician billing, not for hospitals. Over the years, these CPT codes have been adopted by hospitals for billing emergency department visits. Emergency department services are billed with CPT codes 99281 through 99285. After receiving the payment and EOBR, Largo timely filed a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute, with attachments, to the Department. Largo alleged in its Petition that the correct reimbursement amount owed was $5,913.79, leaving an underpayment of $625.82. Qmedtrix, acting as Guarantee’s representative, then filed Guarantee’s Response to Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute and attachments with the Department. Attached to the Response was a letter from R.W. von Sydow dated November 5, 2009. The letter asserted that the correct payment to the hospital (Largo) should be determined on an average of usual and customary charges for all providers in a given geographic area, rather than the hospital’s usual and customary charges. As authority, Mr. von Sydow cites the case of One Beacon Insurance v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 958 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). The letter also requested that the Department “scrutinize the bill in question in order to determine, first, whether the hospital in fact charged its usual charge for the services provided and, second, whether the billed charges are in line with the customary charges of other facilities in the community.” The letter further alleges that the hospital “upcoded” the emergency room visit, billing using CPT code 99284, asserting that the proper billing code should have been 99283. The letter concludes that the amount paid, $398.22, for the emergency department visit is closer to the “usual and customary” charges that Qmedtrix asserts, on behalf of Guarantee, is applicable to the claim. On November 13, 2009, the Department issued its Determination. The Determination states in pertinent part: The Carrier Response to Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute disputes the reasonableness of the hospital’s “usual and customary charges,” maintains the petitioners’ charges should be based on the average fee of other hospitals in the same geographic area, and references a manual not incorporated by rule. There are no rules or regulations within Florida’s Workers’ Compensation program prohibiting a provider from separately billing for individual revenue codes. The carrier did not dispute that the charges listed on the Form DFS-F5- DWC-90 (UB-92) or the charges listed on the itemized statement did not conform to the hospital’s Charge Master. Nor did the carrier submit the hospital’s Charge Master in the response or assert that the carrier performed an audit of the Charge Master to verify the accuracy of the billed charges. Therefore, since no evidence was presented to dispute the accuracy of the Form DFS-F5- DWC-90 or the itemized statement as not being representative of the Charge Master, the OMS finds that the charges billed by the hospital are the hospital’s usual and customary charges. Rule 69L-7.602, F.A.C., stipulates the appropriate EOBR codes that must be utilized when explaining to the provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment. The EOBR submitted with the petition does not conform to the EOBR code requirements of Rule 69L-7.602(5)(q), F.A.C. Only through an EOBR is the carrier to communicate to the health care provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment of the provider’s bill. Pursuant to s. 440.13(12), F.S., a three member panel was established to determine statewide reimbursement allowances for treatment and care of injured workers. Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., incorporates, by reference, the applicable reimbursement schedule created by the panel. Section 440.13(7)(c), F.S., requires the OMS to utilize this schedule in rendering its determination for this reimbursement dispute. No established authority exists to permit alternative schedules or methodologies to be utilized for hospital reimbursement other than those adopted by Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., unless the provider and the carrier have entered into a mutually agreeable contract. Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., incorporates, by reference, the Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2006 Edition (Hospital Manual). Since the carrier failed to indicate any of the services are not medically necessary, the OMS determined proper reimbursement applying the above referenced reimbursement guidelines. Therefore, the OMS has determined that the carrier improperly adjusted reimbursement to Largo Medical Center for services rendered to the above- referenced injured employee on July 25, 2009. Based upon the above analysis, the OMS has determined that correct reimbursement equals $5,913.79 ($7,885.05 x 75% [Hospital Manual] = $5,913.79). The determination letter also informed Guarantee of its right to an administrative hearing. Guarantee timely filed a Request for Administrative Hearing, which gave rise to this proceeding. CODING FOR M.C.’S EMERGENCY SERVICES As mentioned above, Largo reported the emergency department visit using CPT Code 99284. No one from the hospital testified, but Largo’s expert, Allan W. March, M.D., reviewed Largo’s hospital record for M.C. Dr. March is a graduate of Dartmouth College and Johns Hopkins University Medical School. He has extensive experience in, among other things, hospital physician practice and utilization review. Dr. March describes utilization as the oversight of medical care to affirm that it is appropriate, cost-effective, and medically necessary. Dr. March has worked as an emergency department physician and has personally treated upwards of 5,000 workers’ compensation patients. Dr. March testified on behalf of Largo and the Department. Dr. March described M.C. and her injuries from the hospital record as follows: This is a 32-year-old female who had just slipped at her place of work prior to arrival at the emergency department and presented in moderate distress, with moderate pain in the head, neck, and lower back. And the patient displayed tenderness in the posterior neck area as well as in the right lower back. Dr. March reviewed Largo’s hospital record for M.C. to analyze whether Largo appropriately used CPT code 99284, or whether it should have used a lower CPT code. Largo’s coding for the emergency department visit is based on the American College of Emergency Physicians’ “ED Facility Level Coding Guidelines” (ACEP Guidelines). By using the ACEP Guidelines, Largo used a nationally recognized methodology in determining the level of service to which the hospital should bill. He noted that the hospital’s charge sheet indicated that the level of services was marked at a Level 4. Dr. March compared the hospital’s charge list with the ACEP Guidelines and found them to be essentially the same, and that the Level 4 marked on the charge sheet corresponded with CPT code 99284. Dr. March found that Largo used a nationally recognized methodology in determining the level of service to which the hospital should bill. In Dr. March’s opinion, Largo correctly assigned 99284 to M.C.’s emergency department visit, and that the assignment of 99284 is substantiated by the medical record. Under the ACEP guidelines, the CPT code level assigned is always the highest level at which a minimum of one “possible intervention” is found. In this case, Dr. March determined that two CT scans were ordered by the physician and performed by the hospital, which substantiates the use of a 99284 code under the ACEP Guidelines. Dr. March further explained that the coding level of a hospital does not correspond directly to the coding level assigned by the physician. The physician’s services are coded under the CPT-4 coding book. According to Dr. March, the CPT coding manual is applicable to facility coding only if the hospital chooses to use this manual as a basis in their methodology for coding. Further, Dr. March explained that the separate billing of the emergency department visit captures separate and distinct costs incurred by hospitals that are not included in line-items for procedures. The claim submitted by Largo was sent to Qmedtrix for a bill review. Its data elements were first entered into Qmedtrix’ proprietary bill-review software known as “BillChek.” The software placed Largo’s claim on hold for manual review. The claim was then manually reviewed by Mr. von Sydow, Director of National Dispute Resolution for Qmedtrix. Although his educational background is in law, Mr. von Sydow is a certified coder certified by the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA). Mr. von Sydow determined in his bill review that Largo should have used code 99283 instead of 99284. Mr. von Sydow described what he considers to be inconsistencies between certain diagnosis codes under the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition (ICD-9) and the CPT codes used to classify the emergency department visit. He considers the ICD-9 codes on Largo’s claim (specifically 959.01 used to indicate “head injury, unspecified”) to be inconsistent with CPT code 99284. In his view, ICD-9 corresponds more closely with CPT code 99283. Moreover, Mr. von Sydow referenced a study by the American Hospital Association (AHA) and AHIMA, which suggests that hospitals should count the number and kind of interventions to approximate the CPT factors, but that a hospital should not include in this count interventions or procedures, such as CTs or X-rays, which the hospital bills separately. He further acknowledged that the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) allow hospitals to use their own methodology in applying the CPT codes. David Perlman, M.D., received his undergraduate degree from Brown University and his medical degree from the University of Oregon. He has considerable experience as an emergency room physician. For the past six years, he has worked for Qmedtrix initially doing utilization review and as its Medical Director since 2005. Dr. Perlman testified on behalf of Guarantee. Dr. Perlman is familiar with the ACEP guidelines relied upon by Dr. March and the AHA/AHIMA study relied upon by Mr. von Sydow. He is also familiar with the CPT code handbook. Dr. Perlman suggested that the use of the ACEP guidelines could result in reimbursement essentially already provided in a separate line-item. He agrees with the methodology recommended by the AMA/AHIMA study. That is, counting the number and kind of interventions or procedures to approximate the CPT book’s factors to consider in selecting the code billed for emergency department services, but not including in this count interventions or procedures, such as CTs or X-rays, which the hospital bills separately. In Dr. Perlman’s opinion, M.C.’s injuries supported assignment of CPT code 99283 rather than 99284. The fact that M.C. underwent CT scans did not alter this conclusion. According to Dr. Perlman, use of a CT scan in a patient’s emergency department treatment determines that the facility may assign a 99284 code under the ACEP guidelines. In his opinion, this does not necessarily reflect the severity of the illness or injury. Dr. Perlman acknowledged, however, that hospitals are free to use the ACEP guidelines and that many hospitals do so. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that there is no national, standardized methodology for the manner in which hospitals are to apply CPT codes 99281-99285 for facility billing. The preponderance of the evidence also establishes that, while there is a difference of opinion as to whether ACEP guidelines are the best method, it is a nationally recognized method used by many hospitals. Largo’s use of this methodology is supported by the weight of the evidence as appropriate. M.C.’s hospital record amply documents the interventions required for the assignment of CPT code 99284 under the ACEP guidelines. Dr. March’s opinion that the separate billing of the emergency department visit captures separate and distinct costs incurred by hospitals that are not included in line-items for procedures is accepted. It is concluded that the coding of M.C.’s emergency department visit as 99284 by Largo was appropriate. There is no dispute that Largo’s charges as represented on the UB-04 form conform to its internal charge master, or that the services represented were in fact provided, or that they were medically necessary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a Final Order requiring Petitioner to remit payment to Largo consistent with the Determination Letter dated November 13, 2009, and Section 440.13(7)(c), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 17th day of June, 2010.
Conclusions Having reviewed the Administrative Complaint, and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency has jurisdiction over the above-named Respondent pursuant to Chapter 408, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. 2. The Agency issued the attached Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form to the Respondent. (Ex. 1) The Election of Rights form advised of the right to an administrative hearing. 3. The parties have since entered into the attached Settlement Agreement. (Ex. 2) Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 1. The Settlement Agreement is adopted and incorporated by reference into this Final Order. The parties shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Respondent shall pay the Agency $2,500.00. If full payment has been made, the cancelled check acts as receipt of payment and no further payment is required. If full payment has not been made, payment is due within 30 days of the Final Order. Overdue amounts are subject to statutory interest and may be referred to collections. A check made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration” and containing the AHCA ten-digit case number should be sent to: Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Filed May 7, 2014 3:10 PM Division of Administratite Hearings ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on this day of Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by Jaw, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and correct soppot this Final Ordgr was served on the below-named persons by the method designated on this 7&—day of a4 Agency for Health Care Administration Mahan Drive, Bldg. #3, Mail Stop #3 2727 alth Care Administration oop, Agency Clerk Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 —T Jan Mills Finance & Accounting Facilities Intake Unit Revenue Management Unit (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) Alba M. Rodriguez, Senior Attorney Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Powell & Mack Agency for Health Care Administration 3700 Bellwood Drive (Electronic Mail) Tallahassee, Florida 32303 (U.S. Mail) Jessica E. Varn Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Mail)
Conclusions The Agency served the Petitioner with a Notice of Intent to Impose Late Fine dated March 24, 2009 notifying the Petition of its intent to impose an administrative fine in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), attached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. 1). Petitioner requested a formal hearing at the Department of Administrative Hearings. The Agency also served the Petitioner with a Notice of Intent to Deny dated May 15, 2009, notifying the Petitioner of its intent to deny its renewal application, a tached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. 2). The Agency for Health Care Administration ("Agency") has entered into a Settlement Agreement (Ex. 3) with the other party to these proceedings and being otherwise well-advised in the premises, finds and concludes as follows: ORDERED: The attached Settlement Agreement is approved and adopted as part of this Final Order, and the parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Notice of Intent to Impose Late Fine and Notice of Intent to Deny are superseded by this agreement. Filed July 2, 2009 3:19 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. Petitioner has paid an administrative fee in the amount of $2,000.00. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees. 9Ld..l. _ The above-styled cases are hereby closed. DONE and ORDERED this .;:l,?t:f.y of Leon County, Florida. , 2009, in Tallahassee, Holly enson, Secretar Agency for Health Care Administration A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY, ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Tatiana Perez, Owner Lourdes Residence, Inc. 5770 SW 5th Terrace Miami, Florida 33144 (U.S. Mail) MaryAlice H. David Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Finance & Accounting Agency for Health Care Administration Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Bernard E. Hudson Agency for Health Care Administration 2327 Mahan Drive, MS #46 Room #310 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Jan Mills Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the above-named person(s) and entities by U.S. Mail, or the method designated, on this theZ y y of 2009. fAgielnccy fhor HSealthhCa=re A=dministration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 922-5873
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the Office of Community Medical Facilities report to the Secretary of HEW that petitioner failed to provide proper notice of its intent to make a capital expenditure. It is further recommended that the penalty of exclusion of expenses in the reimbursement base not be imposed inasmuch as the imposition of such a penalty would discourage the operation of petitioner's facility and would thereby be inconsistent with the delivery of health services. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE E. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 904/488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Art Forehand, Administrator Office of Community Medical Facilities Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harry R. Chadwick, Jr. Attorney 4100 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 Eric J. Haugdahl Assistant General Counsel 1323 Winewood Building, Suite 406 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Tampa General Hospital is a 530 bed short term general acute care hospital. Hillsborough County Hospital is a 157 bed general acute care hospital. Both are divisions of Hillsborough County Hospital Authority, a public hospital system located in Tampa, Florida. T. 25; Hearing Officer E. 1. Tampa General Hospital and Hillsborough County Hospital filed timely petitions and have standing to seek such hearings. On January 29, 1987, both petitioners filed fiscal year 1986 actual reports as required by statute and rules of Tampa General Hospital. On April 23, 1987, Tampa General Hospital filed in revision to its actual report with respect to RPICC charges and receipts. It is officially recognized that a recommended order has been entered on this date in the consolidated DOAH case numbers 87-5207H and 87-5208H recommending that the April 23, 1987, revision be deemed final and not a correction submitted pursuant to section 12, chapter 87-92, Laws of Florida. If this conclusion is correct, the question of approval or disapproval of the April 23, 1987, revision is moot. The Board, however, contends that it has generally has the authority to disapprove a report of this nature pursuant to its rules and the statutes establishing the Board. On June 9, 1987, and the weeks thereafter, both Petitioners sought to correct their 1986 actual reports with respect to funds received by the Petitioners from Hillsborough County pursuant to the special sales tax enacted pursuant to chapters 84-373 and 85-555, Laws of Florida. These proposed corrections were submitted pursuant to section 12, chapter 87-92, Laws of Florida. The Hospital Cost Containment Board contends that it generally has authority to disapprove reports filed with the Board by hospitals regulated by the Board, and specifically contends that authority extends to revisions sought by the Petitioners with respect to both the sales tax funds and the RPICC funds. The Board has proposed to adopt rule 27J-1.0075 pursuant to its interpretation of it is authority and cites section 395.505, Fla. Stat. (1987) as general authority for such rulemaking. The portion of rule 27J-1.0075 challenged in this case provides; (2) A hospital may correct its 1986 fiscal year data for purposes of the redistribution of the Public Medical Assistance Trust Fund surplus, if such correction is verified by the hospital's independent certified auditors. Such corrections shall not be considered if received at the Board office after September 29, 1987. All such corrections shall comply with the following criteria, to the Board's satisfaction. (E.S.) The proposed rule was not published in the Florida Administrative Weekly until September 4, 1987, well into the period for filing corrections to 1986 actual reports pursuant to section 12, chapter 87-92, Laws of Florida. Since the record in these cases is consolidated with the section 120.57(1), Fla. Stat., cases, all of the findings of fact in the recommended order in DOAH case numbers 87-5207H and 87-5208H entered this same date, including the Appendix to that recommended order, are incorporated in this order by reference for purposes of background information in this rule challenge.
Conclusions Having reviewed the Administrative Complaint, and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency has jurisdiction over the above-named Respondent pursuant to Chapter 408, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. 2. The Agency issued the attached Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form to the Respondent. (Ex. 1) The Election of Rights form advised of the right to an administrative hearing. 3. The parties have since entered into the attached Settlement Agreement. (Ex. 2) Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 1. The Settlement Agreement is adopted and incorporated by reference into this Final Order. The parties shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Respondent shall pay the Agency $1,000.00 in administrative fines. If full payment has been made, the cancelled check acts as receipt of payment and no further payment is required. If full payment has not been made, payment is due within 30 days of the Final Order. Overdue amounts are subject to statutory interest and may be referred to collections. A check made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration” and containing the AHCA ten-digit case number should be sent to: Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 1 Filed September 17, 2012 12:02 PM Division of Administrative Hearings 3. Conditional licensure status is imposed on the Respondent beginning on March 9, 2012, and ending on March 20, 2012. ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on this wi 3 day id often Z , 2012. } i ViDenr fe , EA fing Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and correct, jy ot this Final Order was served on the below-named persons by the method designated on this / ay of , 2012. OOP; A Fe Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. #3, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Finance & Accounting Facilities Intake Unit Revenue Management Unit (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) Thomas J. Walsh II Anna Small, Esq. Office of the General Counsel Allen Dell Agency for Health Care Administration Counsel for Respondent (Electronic Mail) 202 South Rome Avenue, Suite 100 Tampa, Florida 33606 (U.S. Mail) Lingle F. Bogan Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Mail)
