Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence and the admissions made by Sandbank at hearing, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact: Stanley Sandbank has been a licensed pharmacist in the State of Florida since 1975 and has actively engaged in the practice of pharmacy in this state since 1982. During the Fall of 1987, Sandbank was employed as a pharmacist at Rite- Aid Discount Pharmacy 2165 in Miami Beach, Florida. Toward the latter part of November of that year, Rite-Aid management received a telephone call from a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent, who stated that she had obtained a tip from a reliable informant that Sandbank "was selling drugs on the street." The DEA agent suggested that a controlled audit be conducted to ascertain whether these drugs were being misappropriated from the pharmacy at which Sandbank worked. Rite-Aid management followed the DEA agent's suggestion and performed such a controlled audit. The audit was completed on November 25, 1987. It revealed that 154 dosage units of Percocet and 201 dosage units of Percodan were unaccounted for and missing from the pharmacy's inventory of controlled substances. Percocet is a brand name of a "medicinal drug," as defined in Section 456.003(7), Florida Statutes, which contains Oxycodone, a controlled substance listed in Schedule II of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Percodan is a brand name of a "medicinal drug," as defined in Section 465.003(7), Florida Statutes, which also contains Oxycodone. Because Sandbank was the only pharmacist on duty during the time the audit was conducted, Rite Aid management believed that he was responsible for the shortages that had been discovered. Sandbank initially denied knowing anything about the matter, but later admitted his transgression. As Sandbank freely admitted, he had removed from the pharmacy and delivered to relatives and neighbors the following approximate quantities of controlled substances without first having been presented with a valid prescription and without Rite-Aid having received payment in full for these controlled substances: CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE QUANTITY Valium 10 mg. 300 Diazepam 10 mg. 400 Percodan 375 Percocet 360 Dilaudid 100 Hycodan Syrup 240 Placidyl 750 mg. 30 Valium, Dilaudid, Hycodan Syrup, and Placidyl are brand names of "medicinal drugs," within the meaning of Section 465.003(7). Valium contains Diazepam, which is a controlled substance listed in Schedule IV of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Dialudid contains Hydromorphone, which is a controlled substance listed in Schedule II of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Hycodan Syrup contains Hydrocodone, which is a controlled substance listed in Schedule III of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Placidyl contains Ethchlorvynol, which is a controlled substance listed in Schecdule IV of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Sandbank kept at least a portion of the money he had been given by this neighbors and relatives for having delivered to them the above-described controlled substances. He therefore reaped a financial gain as a result of his unauthorized and surreptitious diversion of these controlled substances from Rite-Aid Discount Pharmacy #2165.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Pharmacy enter a Final Order finding that Stanley Sandbank violated Section 465.016(1)(e), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and imposing the above-described disciplinary action which the Department of Professional Regulation has proposed. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Mone', Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Stanley Sandbank 4300 Sheridan Street Hollywood, Florida 32399-0750 Rod Presnell, Executive Director Board of Pharmacy Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kenneth D. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent has held a Florida pharmacist's license, No. PS0017402, and has been president of American Chemist Shops, Inc., which holds permit No. PH0009600 to operate The Medicine Shoppe, a community pharmacy, at 488 NE 125th Street in North Miami, Florida. A second generation pharmacist, Mr. Ally trained in his native (British) Guyana and at the Chelsea School of Pharmacy in London, before qualifying as a pharmacist in England. He also worked at Rand Memorial Hospital in Freeport, Bahama Islands, before his initial licensure in Florida in 1979. After three years as a staff pharmacist at one Florida hospital and five and a half years as director of pharmacy at another, he went to work for Mrs. Friedman, a pharmacist's widow, then bought the pharmacy from her. Ever since he started at The Medicine Shoppe, respondent has been director of the pharmacy department. Even when Howard Friedmann was alive, Bonita Liston, a woman in her twenties, was a regular customer of The Medicine Shoppe. From time to time a Dr. Murray prescribed pain killers or antibiotics for her. The shop kept a file or card on Ms. Liston as it did on other regular customers. Ms. Liston's record reflected the filling of several prescriptions, but none after June 10, 1988, the date respondent's assistant made a note in the file which reads, "North Miami Detectives came in Shoppe, Do not disperse any Rx's." Hearing Officer's Exhibit No. 1. Nevertheless, on November 28, 1988, Mr. Ally gave Ms. Liston a brown two-ounce bottle full of Tussionex, a Schedule III "medicinal drug" containing hydrocodone. Coughing, she had arrived without a prescription shortly before the pharmacy closed that day. Dr. Murray had prescribed six-ounce supplies of this medicine for her on two occasions in September of 1987, and, respondent testified, she told him she would secure another such prescription the next day, return for four more ounces, and make payment. With Ms. Liston at the pharmacy on November 28, 1988, was Jodie Schuster, at the time an undercover policewoman working for the North Miami Police Department. Concealed on her person was a microphone or "body bug" which allowed special agent Jeffrey Michael Portz of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to monitor conversations in the pharmacy. On December 7, 1988, respondent's 35th wedding anniversary, Ms. Schuster returned to the pharmacy similarly wired, and Mr. Portz resumed monitoring. She asked for more cough medicine for Ms. Liston, and respondent gave her two ounces of Hycodan, a drug not unlike Tussionex. Respondent's testimony that he did not also give her Valium tablets has been credited. Again no money changed hands, nor was any consideration offered or discussed. Taken from the pharmacy in handcuffs, respondent was criminally prosecuted and, on May 22, 1987, sentenced. Among other things, the sentencing judge suspended respondent's pharmacist's license effective that date. Petitioner reinstated the license on January 31, 1991, and renewed it shortly before hearing. Before his arrest, respondent and his assistant filled 80 to 120 prescriptions a day. In keeping with legal requirements, physicians prescribing controlled substances report the number assigned them by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), by writing it or causing it to be written on the prescription form. Every such number is preceded by two letters, "A" followed by the first letter of the doctor's last name. Among the prescriptions for controlled substances filled by respondent or under his supervision at The Medicine Shoppe were some 30 which another pharmacist testified he would not have filled without verification. Two do not have patients' addresses. One prescription filled, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1A, lacks a legible doctor's name, and has no DEA number. Another gives DEA number AH 224 3119 for a Dr. A. Carlos Casademont. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6B. These irregularities notwithstanding, petitioner did not offer competent evidence to prove that any of the prescriptions were forged or invalid. An expert testified that good practice would have required verification, but was unable to say that respondent had in fact failed to verify the prescriptions. Petitioner did not allege or prove the absence of a written record (apart from the cancelled prescriptions themselves) of controlled substances, or prove the contents of any such records.
Recommendation It is, accordingly recommended: That petitioner suspend respondent's pharmacist's license for two (2) years, with credit for any suspension on account of delivery of Tussionex to Bonita Liston already accomplished. That petitioner suspend respondent's pharmacy permit for one (1) year, with credit for any suspension on account of delivery of Tussionex to Bonita Liston already accomplished. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5809 With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 1, the testimony was that the drug delivered to Ms. Schuster on December 7, 1988, resembled Tussionex but was not Tussionex. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 2 is rejected as against the weight of the evidence. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 3, the evidence showed that certain prescriptions lacked the patient's address, the physician's DEA number or other detail, but petitioner's expert said it was acceptable practice to fill such prescriptions, if verified. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 4 has been accepted at least as regards the Casademont prescription with DEA No. AH 224 3119. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 5 is really a proposed conclusion of law. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 3, including subparts, has been adopted in substance, insofar as material, and to the extent reported in the findings of fact. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 4.1 through 4.4 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 4.5 through 4.9 and No. 5, including subparts, have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. COPIES FURNISHED: John Taylor, Executive Director Board of Pharmacy Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Michael A. Mone, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0752 Neil F. Garfield, Esquire Garfield & Associates 3500 North State Road 7, Suite 333 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33319
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner must reimburse Respondent an amount up to $1,676,390.45, which sum Petitioner received from the Florida Medicaid Program in payment of claims arising from Petitioner's dispensing of pharmaceuticals between July 3, 2000 and March 28, 2002. Respondent alleges that the amount in controversy represents an overpayment related to Petitioner's failure to demonstrate the availability of sufficient quantities of drugs to support its billings to the Medicaid program.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA" or the "Agency") is the state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program ("Medicaid"). Petitioner Disney Medical Equipment, Inc., d/b/a Disney Pharmacy Discount ("Disney Pharmacy"), was, at all relevant times, a Medicaid provider authorized, pursuant to contracts it had entered into with the Agency known as Provider Agreements, to receive reimbursement for covered services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Exercising its statutory authority to oversee the integrity of Medicaid, the Agency directed its agent, Heritage Information Systems, Inc. ("Heritage"), to conduct an audit of Disney Pharmacy's records to verify that claims paid by Medicaid during the period from July 3, 2000 to March 28, 2002 (the "Audit Period") had not exceeded authorized amounts. Over the course of four days in May 2002, three of Heritage's auditors reviewed records on-site at Disney Pharmacy's drugstore in Hialeah, Florida; they also interviewed some of the store's personnel. Thereafter, Heritage analyzed the data it had collected using several different approaches. Each approach pointed to the conclusion that Medicaid had paid too much on claims submitted by Disney Pharmacy during the Audit Period. The total amount of the alleged overpayment differed substantially, however, depending on the analytical approach taken. The approach that yielded the largest apparent overpayment was the "prorated purchase invoice" analysis. Generally speaking, under this approach, the volume of pharmaceuticals that the provider maintained in its inventory during the Audit Period is compared to the provider's contemporaneous Medicaid claims to determine whether the provider possessed enough of the relevant pharmaceuticals to support the Medicaid claims presented. If the total amount purportedly dispensed, according to the claims made in connection with a particular drug, exceeds the amount of that drug available at the time for dispensing, then an inference of impropriety arises with regard to those claims for which product was apparently unavailable; the Agency considers amounts paid on such claims to be overpayments. To determine the quantities of certain drugs that Disney Pharmacy had kept on hand during the Audit Period, Heritage tallied up the total number of "units" of selected drugs that Disney Pharmacy had acquired, using as a database the invoices reflecting Disney Pharmacy's purchases of the drugs under review. Heritage then ascertained——again using Disney Pharmacy's records——the utilization rate of Medicaid beneficiaries for each of the pharmaceuticals under consideration. In other words, Heritage determined, for each drug at issue, the relative demand——expressed as a percentage of the total number of units of that drug dispensed to all customers during the Audit Period——attributable to Medicaid beneficiaries. Heritage found, for example, that Medicaid recipients accounted for 55.13% of Disney Pharmacy's total sales of the drug Acetylcysteine-10% solution ("Acetylcysteine") during the Audit Period. Having calculated the total amount of each drug at issue that Disney Pharmacy had acquired during the Audit Period, and having further determined for each such drug the Medicaid utilization rate, Heritage multiplied the total number of available units of each drug by the applicable utilization rate, prorating the entire supply of each drug to reflect the approximate number of units available for dispensing to Medicaid recipients specifically. For example, Disney Pharmacy's records showed that it had purchased a total of 121,440 units of Acetylcysteine during the Audit Period. Disney Pharmacy's records showed, additionally, that this drug was dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries 55.13% of the time. Thus, the prorated quantity of Acetylcysteine available for Medicaid recipients was approximately 66,950 units (121,440 x 0.5513). The prorated number of available units of each subject drug was compared to the total number of units for which Medicaid had reimbursed Disney Pharmacy during the Audit Period. For Acetylcysteine, these figures were 66,950 and 1,076,070, respectively. If the total number of units for which Medicaid had paid on claims for a particular drug were found to exceed the amount of that drug which Disney Pharmacy apparently had on hand——as it did for Acetylcysteine——then the inventory shortfall——1,009,120 units in the case of Acetylcysteine——was multiplied by the drug's average per-unit cost to Medicaid, producing a drug-specific apparent overcharge. Thus, for example, because the average cost of Acetylcysteine was $0.65 per unit, the apparent overcharge with respect to this drug was $655,928.00. Using the foregoing approach, Heritage identified apparent overcharges in connection with 13 drugs. The sum of these drug-specific overcharges is $1,676,390.45. Two drugs—— Acetylcysteine and Ipratropium Solution ("Ipratropium")——account for nearly 93% of this grand total. Two other drugs——Albuterol- 0.83% ("Albuterol") and Metaproterenol-0.4% ("Metaproterenol")—— account for another 7.0% of the total alleged overcharge. These four drugs——whose individual overcharges, taken together, comprise approximately 99.8% of the total alleged overcharge of $1,676,390.45——are used for treating breathing disorders and typically are inhaled by the patients who use them.i There is no genuine dispute regarding the reason why Disney Pharmacy was unable to document its acquisition of Acetylcysteine, Ipratropium, Albuterol, and Metaproterenol (collectively the "Inhalation Therapy Drugs") in quantities sufficient to support its claims to Medicaid for these pharmaceuticals. During the Audit Period, Disney Pharmacy generally filled prescriptions for the Inhalation Therapy Drugs by "compounding" the prescribed medications. (Compounding is a process whereby the pharmacist mixes or combines ingredients to fashion a tailor-made medication for the patient.) Thus, Disney Pharmacy (for the most part) did not purchase the commercially available versions of the Inhalation Therapy Drugs; rather, it created its own "generic copies" of these medications, purchasing only the raw materials needed to make finished products. Medicaid reimburses for compound drugs under certain conditions, which will be spelled out below. But first: it is undisputed that Disney Pharmacy did not submit claims for compound drugs. Instead, in presenting claims to Medicaid for the Inhalation Therapy Drugs, Disney Pharmacy billed the medications under their respective National Drug Code ("NDC") numbers, as though commercially manufactured drug products had been dispensed. (An NDC is an 11-digit number, unique to each commercially available pharmaceutical, which identifies the manufacturer, product, and package size.) As a result, Medicaid paid Disney Pharmacy for mass produced products when, in fact, the pharmacy actually had dispensed its own homemade copies thereof. According to the Prescribed Drug Coverage, Limitations and Reimbursement Handbook ("Medicaid Handbook"), which authoritatively sets forth the terms and conditions under which Medicaid reimburses providers for dispensing pharmaceuticals, Medicaid may pay for a compound drug if the following criteria are met: At least one pharmaceutical is a reimbursable legend drug; The finished product is not otherwise commercially available; and The finished product is being prepared to treat a specific recipient's condition. Medicaid Handbook at 9-16.ii To present a claim for a compound drug, the provider must adhere to the following instructions: Compound drug codes must be submitted on paper Pharmacy 061 claim forms, because they are reviewed and manually priced by Medicaid. When billing for a compound drug, enter one of the following compound drug codes. More than one code is available so that more than one compound can be dispensed to a recipient on the same day without using the same number. Id. 55555-5555-55 66666-6666-66 77777-7777-77 88888-8888-88 Disney Pharmacy attempts to defend its failure to follow the unambiguous instructions for billing compound drugs by explaining that, before commencing the practice of compounding, the provider's owner, Sara Padron, made a telephone call to AHCA to ask for guidance on submitting claims for drugs created on-site. Ms. Padron testified at hearing that the AHCA employee with whom she spoke had told her to present claims for compound drugs by billing for the manufactured products that they most resembled, using the manufactured products' NDC numbers. Ms. Padron could not identify the person who purportedly gave her this plainly incorrect advice. Ms. Padron's testimony in this regard was not contradicted——although in fairness to the Agency hers was the kind of testimony that resists direct evidential challenge, forcing an opponent to stress the implausibility of the claim as a means of discrediting it. Ms. Padron's account cannot simply be dismissed as incredible, for an AHCA employee undoubtedly could give an incorrect answer to a provider's question. But even assuming that Ms. Padron reached a person whom one reasonably could suppose to be knowledgeable about Medicaid billing procedures, and further assuming Ms. Padron asked a clear question which fairly and accurately described the situation, neither of which was proved or should be taken for granted, the undersigned remains skeptical that Ms. Padron was instructed to bill for compound drugs as if billing for their commercially available counterparts: the advice is just too obviously wrong. It is not necessary, however, to accept or reject Ms. Padron's testimony concerning the "official" answer she says she received because even if Ms. Padron were told to bill for compound drugs as though manufactured products had been dispensed, no reasonable provider could have relied upon such a dubious oral representation. The statement, for starters, is an invitation to commit fraud. Common sense should inform any reasonable provider that a claim for something other than what was actually delivered will, if discovered, almost certainly be viewed as deceptive (or worse) by the payor. Additionally, the alleged statement attributed to AHCA's employee contradicts the plain instructions in the Medicaid Handbook on that very subject. No provider can reasonably rely upon verbal advice, given anonymously (or functionally so, since the advisor's name, if given, was evidently easily forgotten) over the telephone, which contravenes the clear language of the Medicaid Handbook. Disney Pharmacy's other defenses are likewise unpersuasive. Disney Pharmacy maintains that compounding the drugs in question substantially benefited the patients who received them, which is probably true——but certainly beside the point. The problem here is not with the practice of compounding per se; the problem is that Disney Pharmacy sought and received reimbursement from Medicaid for mass produced, commercially available drugs that had not actually been dispensed. For the same reason, it is irrelevant, even if likely true, that the Board of Pharmacy, which periodically inspects Disney Pharmacy, never objected to the compounding that was occurring at the premises. Again, to be clear, the problem is not that the compounding was improper, but that the Medicaid billing was improper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency enter a final order requiring Disney Pharmacy to repay the Agency the principal amount of $1,676,390.45. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 11th day of April, 2006.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner must reimburse the Respondent for Medicaid overpayments as set out in the Final Agency Audit Report dated January 24, 2008, and pay an administrative fine, and, if so, the amount of the fine and the amount to be repaid.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: AHCA is the state agency charged with responsibility for overseeing the Florida Medicaid system, including the recovery of overpayments to Medicaid providers. § 409.913, Fla. Stat. Grand Pharmacy Discount was first issued a pharmacy license by the Department of Health on June 3, 2004; the license number was PH20078, and the owner of Grand Pharmacy Discount was Ana M. Grajales. On or about May 19, 2005, Mr. Mohebbi purchased Grand Pharmacy Discount from Ms. Grajales. At that time and at all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Mohebbi was a licensed pharmacist, license number PS33552. On July 6, 2005, Mr. Mohebbi applied to the Department of Health, Board of Pharmacy, for a new pharmacy license for Grand Pharmacy Discount, based on a change of ownership. A new pharmacy license, number PH21403, was issued. On July 10, 2005, Grand Pharmacy Discount, through Mr. Mohebbi, submitted a Florida Medicaid Provider Enrollment Application to AHCA, together with a signed Non-Institutional Medicaid Provider Agreement ("Provider Agreement"). The Florida Medicaid Provider Enrollment Application was submitted by Mr. Mohebbi because of a change in ownership, and the Grand Pharmacy Discount pharmacy license referenced in the application was numbered PH21403. Among the provisions of the Provider Agreement were the following: (5) Provider Responsibilities. The Medicaid provider shall Possess at the time of the signing of the provider agreement, and maintain in good standing throughout the period of the agreement's effectiveness, a valid professional, occupational, facility or other license appropriate to the services or goods being provided, as required by law. * * * (8) Ownership. The provider agrees to give AHCA sixty (60) days written notice before making any change in ownership of the entity named in the provider agreement as the provider. Grand Pharmacy Discount was assigned Medicaid provider numbers 0309401-00 and 0309401-01. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Mohebbi was the pharmacy manager for Grand Pharmacy Discount and dispensed all medications.2 On March 30, 2007, David Santiago filed papers with the Florida Department of State incorporating Grand Pharmacy Discount as a limited liability company. Mr. Santiago and Mr. Mohebbi entered into negotiations for Mr. Santiago to purchase Grand Pharmacy Discount, and Mr. Santiago and Mr. Mohebbi had a verbal agreement that Mr. Santiago would pay Mr. Mohebbi a deposit on the business, with the balance due at the time of the sale. In furtherance of his intention to purchase Grand Pharmacy Discount, Mr. Santiago, with the assistance of Mr. Mohebbi, prepared and signed an Application for Pharmacy requesting a new pharmacy license for Grand Pharmacy Discount. It was indicated on the Application for Pharmacy that the application was based on a change of ownership from Mr. Mohebbi to Mr. Santiago, and Mr. Santiago filed the application with the Department of Health on April 2, 2007. A new pharmacy license, license number PH22661, was issued to Grand Pharmacy Discount on April 19, 2007. Mr. Santiago did not fulfill his promise to pay Mr. Mohebbi a deposit on the purchase of Grand Pharmacy Discount, and the negotiations for the purchase and sale terminated. Mr. Santiago and Mr. Mohebbi did not enter into a purchase and sale agreement, and Mr. Mohebbi at no time relinquished ownership or control of Grand Pharmacy Discount, its assets or liabilities, to Mr. Santiago. On June 5, 2007, Mr. Mohebbi submitted an Application for Pharmacy to the Department of Health, Board of Pharmacy, requesting that a new permit be issued to Grand Pharmacy Discount based on a change of ownership; Mr. Mohebbi was listed as the owner. On August 2, 2007, Grand Pharmacy Discount was issued a new pharmacy license, number PH22843. In a letter dated June 13, 2007, AHCA notified Grand Pharmacy Discount that its Medicaid provider numbers had been terminated effective April 19, 2007, because it had been notified that Grand Pharmacy Discount's license number PH21403 had been "closed." AHCA conducted a review of the claims for Medicaid reimbursement submitted by Grand Pharmacy Discount from April 19, 2007, through September 30, 2007. In a Preliminary Audit Report dated October 30, 2007, AHCA notified Grand Pharmacy Discount that it found that Grand Pharmacy Discount was overpaid $10,655.44. On January 24, 2008, AHCA issued the FAR, in which it notified Grand Pharmacy Discount that it owed AHCA a total of $11,655.44, which included the previously-identified overpayment of $10,655.44 and a penalty in the amount of $1,000.00. The reasoning for finding an overpayment was stated as follows: The audit period for this review was from April 19, 2007, through June 5, 2007. Grand Pharmacy Discount, Florida Pharmacy license number PH0021403, located at 2140 N.W. 36th Street, Miami, Florida 33142 was issued Medicaid provider number 030940100 effective July 25, 2005. The Department of Health, due to a change of owners, issued Florida Pharmacy license number PH0022661 for Grand Pharmacy Discount at the same address effective April 19, 2007, which closed the previous license number, PH0021403. Medicaid requires an active pharmacy license for your Medicaid provider number to be valid. Additionally, Medicaid requires providers to notify the Agency of any proposed change of ownership 60 days prior to the date on which that ownership change will occur, per Section 409.907(6), F.S. Paid claims to your provider number were found with dates of service after April 19, 2007, when your pharmacy license was closed. The paid claims identified for the period when your provider number was invalid due to the closed pharmacy license number and ownership change resulted in an overpayment of $10,655.44. The termination date of the Audit Period was changed in the FAR from September 30, 2007, to June 5, 2007. The Audit Period was changed to June 5, 2007, because no Medicaid claims were submitted by Grand Pharmacy Discount after that date. According to AHCA's Documentation Worksheet for Imposing Administrative Sanctions, the $1,000.00 sanction was imposed because of Grand Pharmacy Discount's alleged failure "to report CHOW [Change of Ownership] & allowed unauthorized use of provider # to submit Rx claims." Grand Pharmacy Discount has never been disciplined by AHCA, and AHCA has never sought to recoup any Medicaid overpayments from Grand Pharmacy Discount.
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 withdrawing the Final Audit Report issued January 24, 2008, with respect to both the $10,655.44 overpayment and the $1,000.00 administrative fine. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART 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 December, 2009.
Findings Of Fact There is no genuine issue as to any of the following material facts: The Petitioner is 78 years old and, since at least 1995, has been eligible for Medicare based on her age. The Petitioner's monthly income is $594, and she has no assets or resources. Since at least 1995, she has been eligible for Medicaid based on her income and assets. F.A.C. Rule 59G-3.010(4) provides: (b) Medicare Supplemental Insurance (Part B) The monthly Medicare insurance premium is paid by the Agency directly to the Depart- ment of Health and Human Services for the Medicare and Medicaid eligible recipient. The deductible and co-insurance under Part B, Medicare, are paid for the Medicare and Medicaid eligible recipient by the Medi- caid fiscal agent. For physician services, Medicaid will cover the deductible and co- insurance only to the extent that the total payment received by the physician will not exceed the recognized Medicaid payment or, if there is no comparable Medicaid payment, 100 percent of the deductible and 75 percent of the co-insurance. In these situations, whether the physician did nor did not receive a payment from Medicaid, by billing Medicaid he is bound to the Medicaid payment schedule as payment in full. F.A.C. Rule 59G-3.230(6)(e) provides: Payment Methodology for Covered Services. * * * (e) Services provided to individuals who are covered by both Medicare and Medicaid must be billed to Medicare first. Medicaid will consider payment of the deductible and coinsurance, but in no case shall the combined Medicare and Medicaid payments exceed the maximum allowable Medicaid amount for the procedure. Pages 4-1, 4-2, 4-4, 4-5 and 4-6 and Appendix A-34-35 of The Florida Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook, HCFA-1500, Nov. 1994, incorporated by reference in F.A.C. Rule 59G-3.230(8), contain language that essentially implements F.A.C. Rules 59G-3.010(4) and 59G-3.230(6)(e). When rules on this subject initially were adopted on January 1, 1977, they did not include the challenged provisions. The challenged provisions were added by amendment adopted January 6, 1978. The preamble to the adopting rule's description of the impact of the challenged rules states that the rule "could . . . decrease . . . the number of physicians [and] result in Medicaid eligible individuals paying their own deductible and co-insurance, . . . changing physicians, or maintaining the same physician with the physician accepting a loss in income." (Fla. Admin. Weekly, Vol. 4, No. 1, Jan. 6, 1978, at 224-25.) Some Florida physicians who accept other patients, including patients eligible for Medicare based on age but not eligible for Medicaid, do not accept "dual eligible" patients like the Petitioner (i.e., patients eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid) because the physician makes less money providing services for "dual eligible" patients under the terms of F.A.C. Rules 59G-3.010(4) and 59G-3.230(6)(e) and The Florida Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook than the physician can make providing services for other patients, including patients eligible for Medicare based on age but not eligible for Medicaid. In 1995, the Petitioner's physician required her to pay him fees for service in addition to the reimbursement he received from the Respondent under the terms of F.A.C. Rules 59G-3.010(4) and 59G-3.230(6)(e) and The Florida Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook although those provisions as well as his agreement with the Respondent prohibit him from doing so. The Intervenor asserts that other Florida physicians participating the Medicaid program, likewise in violation of F.A.C. Rules 59G-3.010(4) and 59G-3.230(6)(e) and The Florida Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook as well as their agreements with the Respondent, also "attempt to collect Medicare coinsurance and deductibles from patients who are indigent."
