The Issue The issue is whether the methodology employed by respondent in calculating petitioners' budget letter gross revenues per adjusted admission is a rule, not duly promulgated, and thus is an illegal exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: A. Parties Petitioners, Easte Point Hospital, Inc. and others, are fourteen hospitals in the State of Florida who are subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of respondent, Health Care Cost Containment Board (Board). Petitioner, Florida League of Hospitals, Inc., is a nonprofit organization which is organized and maintained for the benefit of the proprietary hospitals which comprise its membership. The Board is a state agency charged with the responsibility of annually reviewing hospital budgets to insure that a hospital's charges do not exceed certain established thresholds. Intervenor, Citizens of the State of Florida, is represented by the Office of the Public Counsel. That office has the duty of representing citizens in all proceedings before the Board. Events Leading to the Filing of the Rule Challenges Petitioners are required to annually file their projected budgets with the Board for its review and approval. This controversy pertains to the filing of budgets for fiscal year 1992. There are two types of budget filings authorized by law. First, a hospital may file what is known as a budget letter, which is a one- page submission on a form provided by the Board. In preparing such a letter, the hospitals are required to provide information regarding their gross revenues per adjusted admission (GRAA) and maximum allowable rate of increase (MARI), two financial indicators that are used by the Board in measuring the reasonableness of a hospital's charges. A budget letter is to be filed whenever a hospital does not intend to increase its charges (GRAA) in the next fiscal year by more than the percentage amount specified in its approved MARI. Secondly, a hospital may file a detailed budget which is much more complicated than the budget letter and requires the completion of a twenty-seven page form. The preparation of a detailed budget is obviously more time- consuming and expensive than a budget letter and requires the hospital to justify its entire budget. The detailed budget is to be filed whenever a hospital intends to increase its charges (GRAA) from one fiscal year to the next by a greater percentage amount than is specified in the MARI. These cases deal with the legitimacy of a methodology used by the Board in determining whether a hospital is eligible to file a budget letter. In this proceeding, each of the fourteen hospitals filed budget letters with the Board in May 1991. After the budget documents were reviewed by the Board's staff, on June 21, 1991, the Board issued virtually identical proposed agency action to each hospital advising the hospital that its budget letter was "nonconforming for the following reason: The hospital's maximum GRAA should be $ , instead of $ , ", with the appropriate dollar amounts inserted in the blanks. The letter went on to advise each hospital that it should resubmit a corrected budget document and until it did so, its submission would be considered incomplete. The effect of the Board's action was to reduce each hospital's budget letter GRAA and the amount of revenues (charges) it could receive in the next fiscal year unless it agreed to file a detailed budget. The hospitals are accordingly affected by the proposed agency action and thus have standing to being this action. Likewise, since the methodology employed by the Board in rejecting the budget letters affects all members of the Florida League of Hospitals, Inc. who file budget letters, that organization also has standing to participate. The parties have further stipulated to the standing of intervenor, Citizens of the State of Florida. Although the proposed agency action does not show the methodology used by the Board in reaching its conclusion that the "maximum GRAA" was overstated, the record reveals that the Board utilized a certain methodology to calculate the "base GRAA", the first calculation in the budget letter review process. /2 This methodology is described in the second sentence of Subsection 407.50(3), Florida Statutes (1989) as follows: In determining the base, the hospital's prior year audited actual experience shall be used unless the hospital's prior year audited experience exceeded the applicable rate of increase in which case the base shall be the gross revenue per adjusted admission from the year before the prior year, and then inflated by the applicable rate of increase for the current year. Petitioners concede that the methodology used by the Board tracks the language in the above statute verbatim. However, they contend that, when the language in subsection 407.50(2)(a) is considered, it becomes apparent that the use of this methodology is the review of budget letters is not clearly called for, and thus the methodology is a policy having all of the attributes of a rule which has not been adopted pursuant to chapter 120. Conversely, respondent and intervenor claim the methodology is not a policy but simply an interpretation of the controlling statute. Is the Methodology a Rule? By virtue of rather extensive amendments to the law in 1988, budget letters were first authorized for use by hospitals beginning with budget years 1990 and 1991. Prior to that time, all hospitals filed detailed budgets. There was no quarrel over the manner in which hospitals performed their calculations in the first two budget letter filings since subsection 407.50(1) clearly specified the methodology for making all calculations during the first two years. This controversy arises because all subsequent filings of budget letters are controlled by language found in other portions of section 407.50. The relevant portions of that statute read as follows: (a) Except for hospitals filing a budget pursuant to subsection (3), each hospital, at least 90 days prior to the commencement of its next fiscal year, shall file with he board a certified statement, hereafter known as the "budget letter", acknowledging its applicable maximum allowable rate of increase in gross revenue per adjusted admission from the previous fiscal year as calculated pursuant to s. 407.002(17) and its maximum projected gross revenue per adjusted admission for the next fiscal year, and shall affirm that the hospital shall not exceed such applicable maximum allowable rate of increase. . . * * * At least 90 days prior to the beginning of its fiscal year, each hospital requesting a rate of increase in gross revenue per adjusted admission in excess of the maximum allowable rate of increase for the hospital's next fiscal year, shall be subject to detailed budget review and shall file its projected budget with the board for approval. In determining the base, the hospital's prior year audited actual experience shall be used unless the hospital's prior year audited actual experience exceeded the applicable rate of increase in which case the base shall be the gross revenue per adjusted admission from the year before the prior year, increased by the then applicable rate of increase for the current year. * * * A reading of the above statute indicates that subsection 407.50(2) (a) prescribes the form and manner for a budget letter submission. The submission consists primarily of a certified statement by the hospital acknowledging "its applicable maximum allowable rate of increase in gross revenue per adjusted admission from the previous fiscal year as calculated pursuant to s. 407.0C2(17) and its maximum projected gross revenue per adjusted admission for tie next fiscal year, and shall affirm that the hospital shall not exceed such applicable maximum allowable rate of increase. At the same time, subsection 407.50(2) (a) provides that its provisions shall apply to all hospitals "except those filing a (detailed) budget pursuant to subsection (3)". However, the subsection does not prescribe the manner in which the budget letter's base GRAA should be calculated. On the other hand, subsection 407.50(3) appears, at least facially, to impose certain requirements upon detailed budget filings, including the time requirements for filing a detailed budget, who must file one, and the manner in which to calculate the "base". Thus, a literal reading of the statute could lead the reader to reasonably conclude that, while subsection 407.50(2) (a) does not prescribe the manner in which the base GRAA should be calculated for purposes of a budget letter submission, the same judgment can be reached with respect to subsection 407.50(3). In other words, an affected person would not necessarily know from a reading of the law that the base GRAA for a budget letter submission filed under subsection (2) (a) would be calculated using a methodology found in subsection (3). Accordingly, it is found that the methodology used by the Board in calculating the budget letter GPAA is not a statutory interpretation but instead is a policy. While respondent and intervenor presented evidence to justify and explain the rationale for calculating the budget letter base GRAA in this manner, this evidence is more relevant in the companion section 120.57(1) cases. The methodology employed by the Board is one of general applicability since it applies to all hospitals who file budget letters in fiscal year 1992 and beyond. It is applied uniformly without discretion by agency personnel to all hospitals, requires compliance and has the direct and consistent effect of law. The policy has not been adopted as a rule.
The Issue The question in these cases is whether proposed rule 27J-1.062 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority pursuant to section 120.54(4), Fla. Stat. (1985). The stipulated issues in these cases are: Does the Hospital Cost Containment Board have the authority to reduce a hospital's gross revenue per adjusted admission in applying the penalty specified in section 395.5094, Fla. Stat. (1985)? If so, may the reduced gross revenue per adjusted admission serve as the base for comparison in evaluating the rate of increase in the subsequent year's budgeted gross revenue per adjusted admission? No ruling will be made as to the second issue since the parties did not submit evidence or argument on the point. It appears that the issue has been abandoned. Florida Hospital Association, Inc., presented three exhibits, Florida League of Hospitals, Inc., presented one exhibit, the parties presented one joint exhibit, the Hospital Cost Containment Board (HCCB) presented two exhibits, and the prehearing stipulation was made a Hearing Officer's exhibit. All exhibits are in evidence. Testimony was presented from two witnesses, John Benz and James Bracher.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Florida Hospital Association, Inc., is a non-profit corporation organized for the benefit of its 220 member hospitals, including not-for-profit, investor-owned, and governmental hospitals. T. 6. Petitioner Florida League of Hospitals, Inc., is a non-profit corporation organized for the benefit of its members, which are 80 investor- owned hospitals. The Respondent is the Hospital Cost Containment Board (HCCB). The Intervenor is the Public Counsel on behalf of the Citizens of the State of Florida. The following findings of fact are based upon stipulated facts: Throughout calendar year 1985, various drafts and revisions of the proposed rule were prepared by Respondent. The proposed rule was analyzed and discussed at meetings of the Financial Analysis Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) in August, October, and November 1985 and in January 1986. As a result of industry concern raised at those TAP meetings, Respondent made several substantial revisions to the proposed rule including: Amending subsection (3)(a) regarding the offset to the penalty from indigent care assessments, to allow credit for assessments paid by the hospital, rather than accrued in the fiscal year; Amending subsection (3)(b) to provide a "carry forward" provision in the rule that would allow hospitals to carry forward into subsequent years the amount of assessments paid minus the amount of revenues received for purposes of reducing the excess used in calculating the penalty; Amending subsection (5)(e) of the rule to provide that, in applying the penalty to gross revenues, the penalty would not apply to gross revenue reflecting charity care and certain fixed-priced government payors; and Amending subsection (5)(e) to allow other adjustments to the penalty on gross revenue [that might be justified as fair and equitable to all payors. In addition to the substantive changes described above, Respondent made various technical revisions to the proposed rule in response to suggestions from representatives of the hospital industry. The HCCB voted to adopt rule 27J-1.062 at its January 30, 1986, Board meeting, and instructed staff to initiate the rulemaking process. Joint Exhibit 1 is the April 17, 1986, draft of the proposed rule. This draft has not yet been published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, but is the proposed rule that is challenged herein. The draft incorporates the following stipulations: Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of proposed rule 27J-1.062 shall be deleted from the proposed rule. Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 27J-1.062 shall be amended to specify that the budget reduction imposed pursuant to the proposed rule shall apply pro rata to the 12 months immediately following final Board action. Subsection (6) of proposed rule 27J-1.062 shall be deleted. Paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of proposed Rule 27J-1.062 shall be changed to specify that adjustments are based on adjusted admissions in the audited actual experience for the most recently complete fiscal year. Paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of proposed rule 27J-1.062 shall be changed to specify that the Board shall consider changes in case-mix in levying any penalty pursuant to the rule, It is officially recognized that the Respondent, the HCCB, published proposed rule 27J-1.062 in Vol. 12, Issue No. 7, at pp. 606-7, of the Florida Administrative Weekly on February 14, 1986. The proposed rule establishes a method of calculating the penalty provided in section 395.5094(1), Fla. Stat. (1985), which is commonly called the "main" penalty. Joint Ex. 1. Rule challenges by the Petitioners were timely filed. The proposed rule, implementing the above statute, requires an annual comparison by the HCCB of the hospital's audited actual experience for that year with both the Board approved budget for that year and the audited actual experience for the prior year. Joint Ex. 1. The proposed rule first calculates what is to be termed the "excess." The excess is the lesser of the following two amounts: either the absolute dollar amount of the difference between the audited actual net revenue per adjusted admission (NRAA) for the most recently completed fiscal year and the NRAA in the Board approved budget for the same year, or the absolute dollar difference between the audited actual NRAA for the most recently completed fiscal year and the prior fiscal year and the prior year's audited actual NRAA increased by the maximum allowable rate of increase (NARI). The Executive Director of the Board testified that the penalty will not be applied unless the hospital's actual audited experience for net revenues per adjusted admission exceeds both of these bases. T. 74-5. The proposed rule then contains a procedure for reducing the excess and the excess as reduced is called the "adjusted excess." The "penalty" then is calculated by multiplying the adjusted excess by the total adjusted admissions based on the actual audited data for the most recently completed fiscal year. The proposed rule also establishes procedures for reducing the hospital's budget based upon the penalty. Subparagraph (5), proposed rule 27J- 1.062. The reduction applies on a pro rata basis to the 12 months immediately following final Board action on the penalty. For the first occurrence within a five-year period, the Board is to reduce the hospital's budget for net revenues up to the amount of the adjusted excess not to exceed 5 percent of the prior year's actual net revenues inflated by the NARI. Any amount in excess of the 5 percent is then imposed as a fine. Subparagraphs (5)(a) and (c), proposed rule 27J-1.062. For the second occurrence within a five-year period, the Board is to reduce the hospital's budget for net revenues up to the amount of the adjusted excess not to exceed 2 percent of the prior year's actual net revenues inflated by the NARI. Any amount in excess of the 2 percent is then imposed as a fine. Subparagraphs (5)(a) and (c), proposed rule 27J-1.062. For the third occurrence within a five-year period, the Board does not reduce the budget of the hospital in any amount, but simply applies the entire penalty as a cash fine. Subparagraph (5)(b), proposed rule 27J-1.062. Finally, subparagraph (5)(e) of proposed rule 27J-1.062 provides that the gross revenue in the hospital's budget must be reduced. First, pursuant to subparagraph (5)(d) of the proposed rule, the percentage of the reduction of net revenues is calculated by dividing the amount of the penalty by the amount of actual audited net revenue for the most recently completed fiscal year. The percentage of the reduction of net revenues is then multiplied by the actual audited gross revenues for the most recently completed fiscal year. The result is multiplied again by the percentage of the hospital's gross revenue generated from sources other than charity care (which is further defined in the proposed rule) and fixed-price government payors specified in the FHURS (Florida Hospital Uniform Reporting System). Manual. To convert the reduced net and gross revenues in the budget to the NRRA and GRRA format, the reduced amounts are divided by the number of adjusted admissions in the budget. Subparagraph (5)(f) of the proposed rule. Petitioner, Florida Hospital Association, Inc., presented the testimony of John Benz, who was accepted as an expert in hospital finance, accounting, and budgeting. T. 17. Mr. Benz testified regarding the asserted effect of the proposed rule on a hypothetical group of eleven hospitals. See FHA Ex. 1. In this hypothetical, hospital number three was chosen as the hospital penalized, and the penalty amount was assumed to be $150 in gross revenues per adjusted admission. Hospital number three initially ranked above the 50th percentile, but just below the 80th percentile for GRAA. The hypothetical example further assumed that gross revenues per adjusted admission for each hospital would increase annually for ten years at 7 percent. It thus assumed no Board-approved GRAA in excess of 7 percent, or no automatically approved increase to GRAA above 7 percent. The current MARI is 7 percent. T. 88. It also assumed that the adjusted admissions for hospital number three would be 10,000 each of the ten years. T. 24. This is typical of a 300 bed hospital. T. 29. The assumption of uniform admissions is reasonable T. 54-5. It was also assumed in the hypothetical that the HCCB will annually use the GRAA as adjusted as the basis for future year budget calculations and determining the 50th and 80th percentiles for the group. Finally, the example assumed that a 5 percent overage is equal to $250 and a 2 percent overage is equal to $100. T. 34. The hypothetical example then calculated what the GRAA for all eleven hospitals would be for the ten-year period both without application of a penalty to gross revenues and with the penalty applied to gross revenues. In the first year, application of the penalty to GRAA lowers the GRAA of hospital three by $150, and lowers the total gross revenues of that hospital by $1,500,000. T. The reduction in GRAA lowers the 80th percentile GRAA by $20, or about 0.5 percent. Carrying these changes forward using the constant inflation factor of 7 percent, by the tenth year the GRAA of hospital three is $278 lower than it would have been without the penalty in the first year, the loss of gross revenues in the tenth year is $2,780,000, the cumulative loss of gross revenues in the ten years is $20,790,000, and the 80th percentile GRAA is less than it would have been by $55, or about 0.5 percent. T. 38; FHA Ex. 1. The decrease in the 80th percentile GRAA would potentially affect all eleven hospitals in the group. The hypothetical example presented by the Florida Hospital Association, Inc., also set forth a calculation of the asserted effect of the penalty after ten years imposed as a first, second, or third violation in a five-year period. T. 42. The asserted effect is mathematically different because the rule allocates the penalty differently for the first, second, or third violations. As mentioned above, the example assumes that a 5 percent overage is $250 and a 2 percent overage is $100. Again assuming a 7 percent rate of increase for each year in GRAA, the asserted effect of the three kinds of penalties is: Violation Total 10 year Total Cash Fine Asserted total reduction to effect gross revenues First $20,790,000 -0- $20,790,000 Second 13,880,000 500,000 14,380,000 Third -0- 1,500,000 1,500,000 As will be discussed ahead, it is not possible on this record to conclude that the above three-tiered penalty procedure will result in a harsher penalty for the first violation since (1) it is not certain that there will actually be a reduction to gross revenues for the entire 10 years, and (2) there is no expert evidence as to the time value of the cash fines. In the hypothetical discussed above, assuming as was assumed in the hypothetical that adjusted admissions would be 10,000 each year and that the GRAA would increase at 7 percent each year, in ten years, hospital three would have total gross revenues of $777,140,000. It would have lost $20,790,000 in gross revenues in the hypothetical example, and the sum of these two figures is $797,930,000. Thus, the percentage of the asserted amount of lost revenues is 2.6 percent. The Respondent, the Hospital Cost Containment Board, presented the testimony of James Bracher, Executive Director of the Board, who was accepted as an expert in health care financial regulation, including certificate of need, rate review, and budget regulation. T. 72-3. Mr. Bracher presented another hypothetical example to illustrate the asserted effects of the penalty applied only to net revenues and applied to both net and gross revenues. The hypothetical, contained in HCCB Ex. 2, assumes that net revenues will be 70 percent of gross revenues in any given year, that gross revenues will increase yearly by 8 percent, that 50 percent are fixed government payers, that the penalty is to be applied 3 months in 1987 and 9 months in 1988, and that gross revenues are initially $150,000 in 1987. T. 81-82. Finally, the example assumes that the penalty will be 5 percent of net revenues, and is a first violation penalty. T. 82. The result of the HCCB's hypothetical is that if the 5 percent penalty is applied only to net revenues, the penalty is completely recovered from those revenues in the first two years (pro rated since the first year has only a 3- month impact under the hypothetical assumption), and thereafter, net revenues return to the same level as if no penalty had been levied. This occurs directly as a result of the assumption that net revenues will always be 70 percent of gross revenues. T. 83. If the penalty is applied to gross revenues as well as net revenues, the HCCB hypothetical asserts that both gross revenues and net revenues will be permanently lowered. T. 83. This occurs because gross revenues in future years are assumed to be only a constant percentage increase from the penalty year, and net revenues are assumed to be 70 percent of gross revenues in any given year. By 1990, the gross revenues of the hypothetical hospital would be less by $4,462, or by about 2.4 percent, and net revenues would be less by $3,123, which of course would be the same percentage reduction since net revenues are directly related to gross revenues. HCCB Ex. 2. A projected budget is based in part upon historical budgets, and thus, if an earlier budget is incorrectly too high, it is possible that the error may be carried into the future. T. 96. However, the current Florida regulatory scheme provides all hospitals with the opportunity to justify increases in gross revenues annually, based upon current information. T. 86-7. It is possible in a future year for a hospital to gain HCCB approval of a budget for increased gross revenues due to new or expanded services, a change in case mix, or a change in length of stay. T. 90, 51. It is also possible for increases in GRAA to be automatically approved by the HCCB if the hospital is ranked below the 50th percentile in its group, or if the hospital is ranked below the 80th percentile in its group and the increase is less than the MARI. Thus, it is possible that the effect of a penalty to gross revenues in one year may be cancelled out in a future year by increases to GRAA due to approval of a new budget justified upon new facts or due to automatic approval. None of the hypotheticals presented in this case are expected to actually occur precisely as set forth above, and only serve as reasonable illustrations of the potential mathematical relationships between the penalty and future gross or net revenues. As discussed above, since a hospital might be able to justify a higher GRAA in a future year, the Petitioner's and Respondent's hypotheticals might never occur, or at least it is impossible to say whether the cumulative effect may continue for ten years, five years, or forever. Similarly, the assumption of the examples used, that a uniform increase in GRAA of 7 percent or 8 percent per year, while useful as a mathematical example, is unlikely to actually occur. T. 90. The rates of increase for competitor hospitals of the North Broward Hospital District have not been uniform. T. 55. Finally, the assumption of the HCCB that NRAA will be a uniform 70 percent of GRAA might be roughly correct, but in fact the relationship will vary from year to year. T. 123-4. However, notwithstanding the lack of precise examples, several conclusions can be drawn from the hypotheticals presented. First, although it is impossible to predict how long and how much of a cumulative penalty will be felt by a hospital if the penalty is applied to gross revenues, it is relatively certain that the effect of the penalty on gross revenues will continue for several years beyond the base year. This will occur because the budget review process of the HCCB is based primarily upon past history of GRAA. T. 120. If a hospital's GRAA is lowered in a single year, it is likely that this loss of approved GRAA will affect a number of future years. Second, it is also relatively certain that if the penalty is applied only to NRAA, a hospital will be able to return to the same NRAA it would have had without the penalty in a relatively short time, even if one assumes that the relationship between NRAA and GRAA will not uniformly be 70 percent each year. This should occur because GRAA has not been lowered, and thus stands as an approved basis in future years for justification of the higher NRAA. Indeed, if the GRAA is below the 50th percentile, approval will be automatic. Gross revenues minus other operating revenues equals total patient charges. T. 51, 57. Gross revenues minus other operating revenues is what is billable to the patient. Id; T. 56-7. Not all charges billed are collected. The percentage of uncollected patient billings differs from hospital to hospital. Indigents do not pay, and the percentage of indigent care can be 10 percent in some hospitals. T. 97. Medicare may not pay the entire amount billed for a Medicare eligible patient. T. 97. In Florida, hospitals may have 45-50 percent of their patients as Medicare patients. T. 98. Health maintenance organization patients and preferred provider patients may be billed discounted rates. T. 97. Net revenues equal the amount received from patients, and reflect gross receipts from charges to patients. T. 50, 57, 58. Net revenues are a product of patient charges, but are not a direct reflection of such charges. T. 59. Gross revenues thus do not "equal" the amount paid by patients since at least one-half of all patients in Florida do not themselves pay charges. However, excluding other operating revenue, gross revenues do reflect the charges paid by charge-paying patients and the charges paid by third-party payors whose payments are charge-based or discounted, which is somewhat less than one-half of all patients in Florida. There is a significant relationship between gross revenues and charges to patients such that the reduction of gross revenues in a budget is likely, over time, to contain or slow the increase of charges to Florida patients. Petitioner's example of a lump sum Medicare settlement causing a penalty due to increase of net revenues, without increase in gross revenues, is not likely to occur. The HCCB has procedures whereby receipt of a lump sum Medicare settlement may be recognized and approved through budget amendment. T. 90-3. Two prior final orders of the HCCB are in evidence as arguable precedent for the case at bar. These are the final orders in the Lake Hospital of the Palm Beaches case, DOAH Case Number 85-1666H, FHA Ex. 2, and the American Medical International cases, DOAH Case Numbers 85-2296H, 85-2297H, and 85-2265H, HCCB Ex. 1. In the Lake Hospital case, the Board applied the base year adjustment of section 395.509(11), Fla. Stat. (1984), to net revenues only. In the American Medical International cases, the Board construed its authority to review and approve "budgets" to include the power to approve or disapprove net revenue amounts as well as gross revenues. The North Broward Hospital District invests excess funds at a rate of interest of 8 percent to 10 percent. T. 50. The practical effect of the proposed rule is to provide a way to return a hospital to the approximate place it would have been had it not exceeded either its approved budget or its actual audited experience inflated by the MARI. A secondary effect is to alter the percentile relationship of all hospitals to the level it would have been had the subject hospital not exceeded these limits. If it is lawful for the HCCB to reduce GRAA as is intended in the proposed rule, and if the HCCB adopts the proposed rule and fails to follow it, the failure would unlawfully benefit both the subject hospital and all hospitals in the group since both the GRAA of the hospital and the percentile ranking of GRAA of all hospitals in the group, in that event, should be reduced. It would be an unlawful detriment in that event to Florida consumers as well.
The Issue Whether Florida Hospital Medical Center is entitled to reimbursement in the amount preliminarily determined by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, in a reimbursement dispute regarding bills submitted by Florida Hospital Medical Center to Macy’s Claims Services and Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company for medical services provided to two individuals involved in work-related accidents; and Whether Macy’s Claims Services and Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company properly adjusted those bills of Florida Hospital Medical Center in accordance with the requirements of Florida’s Workers’ Compensation law and applicable rules.
Findings Of Fact Florida Hospital is a full-service, not-for-profit hospital system located in Orlando, Florida, that operates a smaller satellite hospital in Winter Park, Florida. Florida Hospital is a “health care provider” within the meaning of Section 440.13(1)(h), Florida Statutes. Macy’s and Amerisure are “carriers” within the meaning of Sections 440.02(4) and 440.02(38), Florida Statutes. The Department has exclusive jurisdiction to resolve disputes between carriers and health care providers regarding payments for services rendered to injured workers, pursuant to Sections 440.13(7) and 440.13(11)(c), Florida Statutes. Qmedtrix is a medical bill review company.3/ Case No. 09-6871 R. P., an employee of Macy’s, slipped and fell at work on May 20, 2009, and presented to Florida Hospital Winter Park for evaluation and treatment where medical personnel documented vomiting, brain attack, and brain trauma. After evaluation and treatment, patient R. P. was diagnosed with a bruise to the head and released the same day. On September 16, 2009, Florida Hospital submitted its bill for services provided to R. P. totaling $5,547.20 to Macy’s for payment, utilizing Form DFS-F5-DWC-90, also known as UB-04 CMS-1450, identifying the charges billed for each line item by revenue code and HCPS or CPT codes. Macy’s forwarded the bill to its workers’ compensation medical bill review agent, Qmedtrix. Qmedtrix reviewed the bill by comparing the procedure codes and diagnosis codes reported by Florida Hospital with examples in the CPT book for billing of emergency department services. Florida Hospital reported ICD diagnosis code 920, which reads “contusion of face, scalp, or neck.” Use of this code means R. P. presented with a bruise or hematoma, but not a concussion. Florida Hospital also reported ICD diagnosis code 959.01 (“head injury, unspecified”) which also means that R. P. did not present with a concussion, loss of consciousness, or intracranial injuries. Florida Hospital’s bill included a charge of $2,417 with CPT code 99285 for emergency department services. The bill also included separate charges for a head CT, and various lab tests, drugs, and IV solutions. According to Mr. von Sydow, the bill was sent through Qmedtrix’s computer program for review, and was flagged for review by a physician. Mr. von Sydow further testified that one of Qmedtrix’s medical director’s suggested that the CPT code of 99285 be reduced. The medical director, who Mr. von Sydow said reviewed the bill, however, did not testify and no documentation of his recommendation was submitted at the final hearing. Qmedtrix determined that Florida Hospital should have used CPT code 99284 when billing for the emergency services rendered instead of CPT code 99285. Qmedtrix found that, while the hospital billed $2,417 with CPT code 99285, its usual charge for an emergency department visit billed with CPT code 99284 is $1,354. Macy’s paid Florida Hospital a total of $2,683.55, which amount included $1,010.24 for the emergency department visit based on [approximately] 75 percent of Florida Hospital’s usual charge for CPT code 99284. The payment was accompanied by an EOBR. The EOBR Macy’s (or its designated entity)4/ issued to Florida Hospital for services rendered to R. P. identifies the amount billed by Florida Hospital as to each line item in a column designated “Billed,” and has columns designated as “BR Red,” “PPO Red,” “Other Red,” and “Allowance,” each containing an amount for each line item in the “Billed” column. There is also a column entitled “Reason Code” which sets forth codes, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602(5)(o)3., that are supposed to explain the reason for adjustment of any line item.5/ The “reason code” set forth adjacent to the $2,417.00 billed by Florida Hospital for emergency department services is “82,” which means “Payment adjusted: payment modified pursuant to carrier charge analysis.” There is also another code, “P506” listed in the “Reason Code” column adjacent to the same line item, which, according to the key provided on the EOBR, means “[a]ny questions regarding this Qmedtrix review, please call (800)-833-1993.” “P506,” however, is not a “reason code” listed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 68L- 7.602(5)(o)3. The EOBR does not advise that the bill was adjusted because of a determination that Florida Hospital should have used CPT code 99284 when billing for the emergency services rendered instead of CPT code 99285 as originally billed. Upon receipt of the payment and the EOBR, Florida Hospital timely filed a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute with the Department pursuant to Section 440.13(7)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Rule 69L-31, contending that payment should be at 75 percent of its total charges, and citing the Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2006 Edition (Hospital Manual). Qmedtrix timely filed a response to Florida Hospital’s petition on behalf of Macy’s pursuant to Section 440.13(7)(b), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-31, asserting that correct payment should be determined based on, first, whether the hospital in fact billed its usual charge for the services and, second, whether the hospital’s charges are in line with the charges of other hospitals in the same community, citing One Beacon Insurance v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 958 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) for the proposition that “SB-50 amended section 440.13 . . . [revealing] legislative intent to eliminate calculation of a “usual and customary charge” based on the fees of any one provider in favor of a calculation based on average fees of all providers in a given geographic area.” Qmedtrix’s response on behalf of Macy’s also contended that “upcoding” and “unbundling” were additional grounds for adjustment or disallowance that were not identified on the EOBR. The response explained that “upcoding” refers to billing with a procedure code that exaggerates the complexity of the service actually provided; that CPT codes 99281 through 99285 describe emergency department services; that the CPT book includes examples of proper billing with these codes; that the hospital billed $2,417 with CPT code 99285; and that the CPT book describes an “emergency department visit for a healthy, young adult patient who sustained a blunt head injury with local swelling and bruising without subsequent confusion, loss of consciousness or memory deficit” as an example of proper billing with CPT code 99283. The response requested a determination by the Department that Macy’s payment equaled or exceeded the amount usual and customary for CPT code 99283. On November 13, 2009, the Department, through its Office of Medical Services (OMS) issued a determination (Determination in 09-6871) which found, in pertinent part: The petitioner asserts that services provided by Florida Hospital Medical Center to the above-referenced injured employee on May 20, 2009, were incorrectly reimbursed. Florida Hospital Medical Center billed $5,547.20 and the carrier reimbursed $2,683.55. The petition does not address a contract and does not reflect a contract discount in the calculation of requested reimbursement. 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, references a manual not incorporated by rule, and provides CPT codes that the respondent alleges are correct. 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 conforms 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 other 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 Florida Medical Center for services rendered to the above- referenced injured employee on May 20, 2009. Based on the above analysis, the OMS has determined that correct reimbursement equals $4,160.40 ($5,547.20 x 75% [Hospital Manual]=$4,160.40). The carrier shall reimburse Florida Hospital Medical Center $4,160.40 for services rendered to the above-referenced employee; and submit proof of reimbursement of the amount determined by the OMS within thirty days of the date the Determination is received. . . . The difference between what Petitioner Macy’s paid Florida Hospital for services rendered to R. P., and the amount the Department determined that Petitioner Macy’s is required to pay for such services, equals $1,476.85. The Determination in 09-6871 did not directly address Macy’s allegation of the alleged billing error of “upcoding.” The Determination in 09-6871 provided a 21-day notice for request of an administrative hearing and, as noted in the Preliminary Statement above, Macy’s timely requested a hearing. Case No. 09-6872 J. L., an employee of Major League Aluminum, was injured in a work-related accident on the evening of May 3, 2009, and visited the emergency department of Florida Hospital Orlando. After evaluation and treatment, J. L. was diagnosed with a bruise to the knee and released the next morning. On September 23, 2009, Florida Hospital submitted its bill for services provided to J. L. totaling $2,851 to Amerisure, Major League Aluminum’s workers’ compensation insurer, for payment, utilizing Form DFS-F5-DWC-90, also known as UB-04 CMS-1450, identifying the charges billed for each line item by revenue code and HCPS or CPT codes. Amerisure forwarded the hospital bill to its medical bill review agent, Qmedtrix for review. Qmedtrix’s medical bill review in this case, as in the companion case, entailed comparing the procedure codes and diagnosis codes reported by the hospital with examples in the CPT book. The hospital reported ICD diagnosis code 924.11, which reads “contusion of . . . knee.” The hospital also reported ICD diagnosis codes 724.2 (“lumbago”), E888.1 (“fall on or from ladders or scaffolding”) and 959.7 (“injury, other and unspecified . . . knee, leg, ankle, and foot.”). Florida Hospital billed $1,354 with CPT code 9924 for emergency department services and also billed for X-rays and various drugs and IV solutions. Comparing procedure codes and diagnosis codes reported by the hospital with examples in the CPT book, Qmedtrix concluded that billing with CPT code 99284 was not appropriate, but that billing with CPT code 99282 was. Qmedtrix also found that, while the hospital billed $1,354 with CPT code 99284, the average charge in the community for a visit to the emergency department billed with CPT code 99282 is $721. Qmedtrix determined the “usual and customary charge” in the community from its own database compiled by entering all of particular hospital bills into Qmedtrix’s database, along with data from the American Hospital Directory. Qmedtrix derives the average charge in the community based upon zip codes of the hospitals. Amerisure paid Florida Hospital a total of $1,257.15, which amount included $524.70 for the emergency department visit codes based on 75 percent of what Qmedtrix determined to be the average charge in the community for CPT code 99282. The payment was accompanied by an EOBR. The EOBR Petitioner Amerisure (or its designated entity)6/ issued to Florida Hospital for services rendered to J. L. identifies the amount billed by Florida Hospital as to each line item in a column designated “Billed Charges,” and has columns designated as “FS/UCR Reductions,” “Audit Reductions,” “Network Reductions,” and “Allowance,” each containing an amount for each line item in the “Billed Charges” column. There is also a column entitled “Qualify Code” which sets forth reason codes that are supposed to explain the reason for adjustment of any line item.7/ The code set forth adjacent to the $1,354.00 billed by Florida Hospital for emergency department services is “82,” which means “Payment adjusted: payment modified pursuant to carrier charge analysis.” The EOBR does not advise that the bill was adjusted because of a determination that Florida Hospital should have used CPT code 99282 when billing for the emergency services rendered instead of CPT code 99284 as originally billed. Upon receipt of the payment and the EOBR, Florida Hospital timely filed a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute with the Department pursuant to Section 440.13(7)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-31, contending that payment should be at 75 percent of its total charges, and citing the Hospital Manual. Qmedtrix timely filed a response to Florida Hospital’s petition on behalf of Amerisure pursuant to Section 440.13(7)(b), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-31, asserting that correct payment should be determined based on, first, whether the hospital, in fact, billed its usual charge for the services and, second, whether the hospital’s charges are in line with the charges of other hospitals in the same community, citing One Beacon, supra. Qmedtrix’s response on behalf of Amerisure contended “upcoding” as an additional ground for adjustment or disallowance that was not identified on the EOBR. As in the companion case, the response explained “upcoding,” that CPT codes 99281 through 99285 describe emergency department services, and that the CPT book includes examples of proper billing with these codes. The response further stated that the hospital billed $1,354 with CPT code 99284, and that the CPT book describes an “emergency department visit for a patient with a minor traumatic injury of an extremity with localized pain, swelling, and bruising” as an example of proper billing with CPT code 99282. The response requested a determination by the Department that Amerisure’s payment equaled or exceeded the usual and customary charge for CPT code 99282. On October 20, 2009, the Department’s OMS issued a determination (Determination in 09-6872) which found, in pertinent part: The petitioner asserts that services provided by Florida Hospital Medical Center to the above-referenced injured employee on May 3, 2009, and May 4, 2009, were incorrectly reimbursed. Florida Hospital Medical Center billed $2,851.00 and the carrier reimbursed $1,257.15. The petition does not address a contract and does not reflect a contract discount in the calculation of requested reimbursement. 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. Therefore, the charges, as billed by the hospital, did not constitute billing errors. 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 conforms 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 other 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 Florida Medical Center for services rendered to the above- referenced injured employee on May 3, 2009, and May 4, 2009. Based on the above analysis, the OMS has determined that correct reimbursement equals $2,138.25 ($2,851.00 x 75% [Hospital Manual]=$2,138.25). The carrier shall reimburse Florida Hospital Medical Center $2,138.25 for services rendered to the above-referenced employee; and submit proof of reimbursement of the amount determined by the OMS within thirty days of the date the Determination is received. . . . The difference between what Petitioner Amerisure paid Florida Hospital for services rendered to J. L. and the amount the Department determined that Petitioner Amerisure is required to pay for such services equals $881.10. The Determination in 09-6872 did not directly address Amerisure’s allegation of the alleged billing error of “upcoding.” The Determination in 09-6872 provided a 21-day notice for request of an administrative hearing and, as noted in the Preliminary Statement above, Amerisure timely requested a hearing. Alleged “Upcoding” for Emergency Department Services The Petitioners’ responses in both cases allege that Florida Hospital “upcoded” its bill for emergency department evaluation and management services. Neither EOBR submitted to Florida Hospital, however, reported alleged “upcoding” as an explanation for the Petitioners’ adjustment or disallowance of reimbursement. While the Dispute Determinations by the Department do not directly address the carrier’s allegation of the alleged billing error of “upcoding” raised in the Petitioners’ responses, they found that “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[, and that] [o]nly 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.” According to Mr. von Sydow, who was offered by Petitioners as an expert in billing, coding, reimbursement, and payment issues,8/ the “reason codes” that workers’ compensation carriers are to use pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602, do not mention “upcoding,” and therefore an EOBR could not be generated with a reason code explaining reduction or disallowance based on “upcoding.” The following reason codes, however, are included in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602: 23 – Payment disallowed: medical necessity: diagnosis does not support the services rendered. – Payment disallowed: insufficient documentation: documentation does not substantiate the service billed was rendered. – Payment disallowed: insufficient documentation: level of evaluation and management service not supported by documentation. Neither EOBR submitted to Florida Hospital includes reason code 23, 40, or 41. And neither EOBR explains or otherwise suggests that that Florida Hospital’s level of billing was not supported by medical necessity, services rendered, or sufficient documentation. In fact, Petitioners did not disallow reimbursement and do not contend that reimbursement should be denied for any services rendered by Florida Hospital to R. P. and J. L. on the grounds that the billed services were not medically necessary for the injured employees’ compensable injuries. In addition, Petitioners did not adjust or disallow payment for any of the billed procedures on the grounds that the procedures were not provided. In sum, the EOBR’s did not give Florida Hospital notice that alleged “upcoding” was an issue. Even if Petitioner’s EOBR’s gave Florida Hospital notice that it was asserting “upcoding” as a reason to reduce or adjust the hospital’s bill, the evidence does not support a finding that Florida Hospital utilized the wrong code in its billing for emergency department evaluation and management services. The CPT® 2009 Current Procedural Terminology Professional Edition, (Copyright 2008), (CPT book), is adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602(3)(d) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 60L-7.020(2). The CPT book sets forth the procedure codes for billing and reporting by hospitals and physicians. The CPT book sets forth CPT codes ranging from 99281 through 99285 used to report evaluation and management services provided in a hospital’s emergency department, described as follows: 99281: Emergency department visit for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: A problem focused history; A problem focused examination; and Straightforward medical decision making. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies and provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient’s and/or family’s needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are self limited or minor. 99282: Emergency department visit for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: An expanded problem focused history; An expanded problem focused examination; and Medical decision making of low complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies and provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient’s and/or family’s needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of low to moderate severity. 99283: Emergency department visit for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: An expanded problem focused history; An expanded problem focused examination; and Medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies and provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient’s and/or family’s needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate severity. 99284: Emergency department visit for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: A detailed history; A detailed examination; and Medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies and provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient’s and/or family’s needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of high severity, and require urgent evaluation by the physician but do not pose an immediate significant threat to life or physiologic function. 99285: Emergency department visit for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: A comprehensive history; A comprehensive examination; and Medical decision making of high complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies and provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient’s and/or family’s needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of high severity and pose an immediate significant threat to life or physiologic function. Mr. von Sydow testified that a Qmedtrix “medical director,” reviewed Florida Hospital’s bill for services rendered to R. P., but not the medical records, and recommended that the hospital’s charge for emergency department services under CPT 99285 be “re-priced” to Qmedtrix’s determination of the “usual and customary charge” for CPT 99284. Mr. von Sydow acknowledged the need for physician review for some cases (as opposed to review by non-physician coders) by testifying, “The more complicated the medicine, the more likely it is that he [a medical director at Qmedtrix] wants to see it.” Despite Qmedtrix’s original determination to “reprice” the bill from CPT code 99285 to CPT code 99284 (reflected in the reduced payment but not explained in the EOBR), Mr. von Sydow opined that the correct CPT code for emergency department services provided to patient R. P. was 99283, as opposed to 99285 billed by the hospital. Mr. von Sydow testified that his opinion was based upon his own review of the medical records, without the assistance of a medical director or medical expert, and review of examples for the CPT codes for emergency department services from the CPT book, and various provisions of ICD-9 and CPT book coding resources. Aside from the fact that Mr. von Sydow’s opinion differed from the purported recommendation of a Qmedtrix “medical director,” Mr. von Sydow is not a physician. Moreover, Qmedtrix failed to provide the testimony of the medical director, or anyone else with medical expertise to evaluate the medical records and services provided or to validate either the opinion of Mr. von Sydow or the original recommendation to “re- price” Florida Hospital’s use of CPT Code 99285 in its bill for emergency department services rendered to patient R. P. Mr. von Sydow offered similar testimony and examples to explain Qmedtrix’s “re-pricing” of Florida Hospital’s bill from CPT code 99284 to CPT code 99282 for emergency services rendered to patient J. L. on behalf of Amerisure. According to Mr. von Sydow, an internal Qmedtrix coder (not a medical director) reviewed the bill for emergency services rendered to J. L. and determined it should be re-priced to the usual and customary charge, as determined by Qmedtrix, using that CPT code 99282. While knowledgeable of the various codes and their uses, given the manner in which preliminary diagnostics under emergency circumstances drives Florida Hospital’s determination of the appropriate CPT code for billing emergency department services, without the testimony of a medical expert familiar with the medical records generated in these cases in light of the facts and circumstances surrounding the emergency care rendered to patients R. P. and J. L., Mr. von Sydow’s testimony was unpersuasive. Ross Edmundson, M.D., an employee, vice-president, and medical manager for Florida Hospital, explained that, unlike other settings, hospitals generally do not have the medical histories of patients presenting for emergency hospital services. When a patient comes to Florida Hospital for emergency services, they are triaged by a nurse to determine the level of urgency, then a doctor sees the patient, conducts a differential diagnosis to rule out possible causes, obtains the patient’s history, and then performs a physical examination. While emergency room physicians at Florida Hospital do not decide which CPT code is utilized for the evaluation and management services provided by its emergency department, the various tests and procedures they undertake to evaluate and treat emergency department patients do. James English, the director of revenue management for Florida Hospital explained the process through his deposition testimony. Florida Hospital, like over 400 other hospitals, uses the “Lynx System” – a proprietary system for creating and maintaining medical records electronically. The program captures each medical service, supply, and physician order that is inputted into the electronic medical record. The hospital’s emergency evaluation and management CPT code is generated from the electronic record. A “point collection system” in the Lynx System translates physician-ordered services, supplies it to a point system, and then assigns the CPT code that is billed based upon the total number of “points” that are in the system at the time the patient is discharged from the emergency department. The level of the evaluation and management CPT code (99281 to 99285) that is reported on Florida Hospital’s bill is a direct reflection of the number and types of medical services that a patient receives from his or her arrival through discharge. In light of evidence showing the manner in which emergency services are provided and the importance of medical records in generating the appropriate billing code for emergency evaluation and management services, it is found that Petitioners failed to provide an adequate analysis of the medical records of either R. P. or J. L. to show that the appropriate CPT codes were not utilized by Florida Hospital in billing for those services. On the other hand, both Petitions for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute filed by Florida Hospital with the Department attached appropriately itemized bills utilizing Form DFS-F5-DWC-90, also known as UB-04 CMS-1450, identifying the charges billed for each line item by revenue code and HCPS or CPT codes. In addition, medical records for the evaluation and treatment provided by Florida Hospital for both patients R. B. and J. L. supporting the itemized bills were submitted to the Department. These documents were also received into evidence at the final hearing. Florida Hospital’s bills at issue correctly identified the hospital’s usual charges for each individual and separately chargeable item, service or supply, with the corresponding code assigned to such billable items as maintained in Florida Hospital’s “charge master.” In addition, Petitioners concede the compensability of both patients’ work-related injuries and do not dispute whether any service or supply rendered and billed by Florida Hospital for these two cases were “medically necessary.”9/ Unbundling As noted above, in Case No. 09-6871, Qmedtrix’s response to Florida Hospital’s petition for resolution of reimbursement dispute contended “unbundling” as a ground for adjustment or disallowance of reimbursement. At the final hearing, Arlene Cotton, the nurse who issued the Dispute Determinations, explained that reason code 63 regarding “unbundling” is inapplicable to hospital billing, as there is no rule that requires hospitals to bundle bill for its services. Mr. von Sydow agreed that reason code 63 was inapplicable. In addition, footnote 2 of Petitioners’ Proposed Recommended Order states, “they did not pursue the allegations of unbundling.” Therefore, it is found that Petitioners did not prove and otherwise abandoned their claim of “unbundling” as a ground to adjust or disallow reimbursement to Florida Hospital. Usual and Customary Charges The Dispute Determinations issued by the Department found that correct payment in both cases equaled 75% of billed charges, citing “Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., [which] incorporates, by reference, the Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2006 Edition (Hospital Manual). Both Section 440.13(12)(a), Florida Statutes, and the Hospital Manual provide that hospital services provided to patients under the workers’ compensation law “shall be reimbursed at 75 percent of usual and customary charges.” The Department interprets the term “usual and customary charges” as set forth in the Hospital Manual and Section 440.13(12)(a), Florida Statutes, quoted above, to mean a hospital’s usual charges of the hospital, whereas Petitioners contend that “usual and customary charges” means the average fee of all providers in a given geographical area. While apparently not contending that Petitioners failed to raise the issue of “usual and customary” charges in their EOBR’s,10/ at the final hearing, the Department argued that “nowhere in [either Macy’s or Amerisure’s] response is the issue of customary charges raised.” A review of the responses filed by Qmedtrix to Florida Hospital’s reimbursement dispute petitions filed with the Department reveal that both raise the issue of “usual and customary charges.” Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Mr. von Sydow’s letter attached to both responses state: As you may know, the proposed adoption of Medicare’s Outpatient Prospective Payment System as a methodology for reimbursing hospitals 60% and 75% of “usual and customary charges” follows from the decision of the First District Court of Appeals in One Beacon Insurance v. Agency for Health Care Administration, No. 1D05-5459 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (SB-50 amended section 440.13 to remove all reference to the charges of any individual service provider; this amendment reveals the legislative intent to eliminate calculation of a “usual and customary charge” based on the fees of any one provider in favor of a calculation based on average fees of all providers in a given geographical area). This court decision requires DFS to define payment rates for out patient service that are uniformly applicable to all hospitals in a given geographic area. In addition, at the final hearing, the Department argued that the petitions for administrative hearing did “not raise as a disputed issue of fact or law whether or not usual and customary charges should apply in this case.” Indeed, a review of the request for relief set forth in the petitions for administrative hearings filed by Petitioners do not mention the issue of “usual and customary charges.” Rather, the relief requested by both petitions for administrative review of the Dispute Determinations, as summarized in the Joint Prehearing Stipulation, is: Petitioner[s] seeks reversal of OMS’ Determination(s) and the matters remanded for the Department to: direct payment based upon the actual treatment required/provided and pursuant to the correct CPT code; find that the hospital upcoded and that Petitioner properly reimbursed (or exceeded amount due); and determine that the hospital has the burden of proof to substantiate its billing and the use of the chosen CPT code. Contrary to the Department’s argument, however, both petitions for administrative hearing raise the issue of “usual and customary charges.” Page 9 of Macy’s petition, in pertinent part states: Petitioner submits that in issuing the above findings OMS failed to consider the holding in One Beacon Insurance v. Agency for Health Care Administration (wherein the Court determined that reimbursement should not be based solely upon a mathematical equation [as found within the Reimbursement Manual] and applying it to the fee charged by a particular provider; and that by eliminating the reference to any one facility’s charges, the legislature intended that the charges be based on average fees of all providers in a geographical area as opposed to the fees of the particular provider in question). Likewise, review of Amerisure’s petition for administrative hearing reveals that the issue of “usual and customary charges” was raised. Pages 7 and 8 of Amerisure’s petition state, in pertinent part: Further, if the Hospital is permitted to utilize incorrect revenue codes it would be impossible to determine whether the charges are consistent with the Hospital’s own [usual and customary] charges for the service, procedure or supplies in question and, further, whether such charges are consistent with charges by other like facilities (in the same geographical area) for the same services, procedures, or supplies. See One Beacon Insurance, supra. In addition, Amerisure’s petition on page 12 states with regard to the Department’s determination: Such finding was issued without consideration of . . . the amounts charged for the same services in the Orlando area where this hospital is located. Petitioners further preserved the issue of “usual and customary charges” in the first paragraph of their statement of position on page 3 of the Joint Prehearing Statement, as follows: Petitioners, Macy’s and Amerisure, take the position that the Determinations must be reversed as the Department has the duty to scrutinize the bills 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 same community (for the same or similar services) and that the Department failed to do so. As such, Petitioners contend that payment for services provided by Florida Hospital should have been based upon 75% of usual and customary charges, not 75% of billed charges. Therefore, it is found that Petitioners have preserved the issue of “usual and customary charges” for consideration in this administrative proceeding. Although preserved, Petitioners failed to demonstrate that their interpretation of “usual and customary charges” should prevail. The Department has consistently interpreted the term “usual and customary charges” as used in the Hospital Manual, Section 440.13(12)(a), Florida Statutes, and rules related to hospital reimbursement under the workers’ compensation law as the “usual and customary charges” of the hospital reflected on the hospital’s “charge master.” The Hospital Manual requires each hospital to maintain a charge master and to produce it “when requested for the purpose of verifying its usual charges. . . .” (Emphasis added). Petitioners did not conduct or request to conduct an audit to verify whether the charges billed by Florida Hospital corresponded with the Florida Hospital’s charge master. In fact, Mr. von Sydow conceded at the final hearing that Florida Hospital’s bills at issue were charged in accordance with Florida Hospital’s charge master. Nor did Petitioners institute rule challenge proceedings against the Department regarding the Hospital Manual, incorporated by reference into Florida Administrative Code Rule 38F-7.501. Instead, Petitioners assert that they should be able to reduce Florida Hospital bills based upon a different interpretation of the phrase “usual and customary charges” to mean the average charge in the community as determined by Qmedtrix. Qmedtrix is not registered with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, and does not employ any Florida-licensed insurance adjuster, physician, or registered nurse. Qmedtrix earns 12 to 15 percent of “savings” realized by carriers utilizing their bill review services. For example, if a bill is reduced by $100, Qmedtrix is paid $12.11/ Qmedtrix uses a proprietary bill review system called “BillChek.” According to Qmedtrix’s website: BillChek reviews out-of-network medical charges for all bill types in all lines of coverage, including group health, auto, medical, and workers’ compensation. BillChek is a unique specialty cost- containment service that determines an accurate and reasonable reimbursement amount for non-network facility and ancillary medical charges. BillChek incorporates historical data to help determine reasonable payment recommendations across all sectors of the health care industry. All BillCheck recommendations are backed by extensive medical and legal expertise, and supported by Qmedtrix’s experienced Provider Relations and Dispute Resolution teams. According to the testimony of Mr. von Sydow, Qmedtrix collects and maintains data from various sources, including Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), the American Hospital Directory (AHD.com), and HCFA 2552’s (data reported to the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services on HCFA 2522) in order to construct a database of health care providers’ usual charges. Mr. von Sydow advised that AHD.com data was a principle source for constructing the database. He also advised that AHCA data was included in the database even though Qmedtrix found the AHCA data defective. Examples of data downloaded from AHD.com for Florida Hospital showing a profile of the facility was received into evidence as P-5. The data did not, however, show usual charges for the CPT codes for emergency department services at issue in this case. Petitioners also introduced into evidence Exhibits P-6 and P-7, which contained AHD.com data showing average charges for Florida Regional Medical Center and Florida Hospital, respectively, for Level 1 through Level 5 emergency room visits (corresponding to CPT codes 99281 through 99285). Mr. von Sydow explained that the data was part of the information Qmedtrix used to construct the average charge in the community. Petitioners failed to provide similar AHD.com data for other hospitals in the area Qmedtrix determined to be the “community.” In addition, Petitioners introduced AHCA’s Florida Health Finder Web-site, as Exhibit P-8, which ostensibly included average charges for all hospitals in Florida for the subject emergency department CPT codes (99281 through 99285). Mr. von Sydow explained, however, “[w]e find that [the AHCA data] is not refreshed very often, unfortunately, and some other defects in the scrubbing of the data by the agency, which they know, I will say. But this is incorporated in our database to a large extent.” The exhibit was received into evidence for the purpose of helping to explain how Qmedtrix constructed its database, with the recognition that it was largely composed of hearsay. In sum, while Petitioners showed their methodology of constructing the database, other than the AHD.com data for Orlando Regional Medical Center and Florida Hospital, Petitioners failed to introduce reliable evidence sufficient to show the “usual and customary charge” of all providers in a given geographical area as determined by Qmedtrix. In addition, the AHCA data, though characterized by Mr. von Sydow as unreliable, indicates that there is a wide range of differences in emergency room charges between hospitals in Florida. Petitioners’ interpretation of “usual and customary charge” to mean the average fee of all providers in a given geographical area does not take into account an individual hospital’s indigent care, cost of labor, overhead, number of beds, size, age, or various other differences between facilities that could affect amounts each hospital charges for emergency department and other services; the Department’s interpretation does.
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 consistent with this Recommended Order that: Directs Macy’s Claims Services to reimburse Florida Hospital Medical Center $4,160.40 for services rendered to patient R. P., and to submit proof of reimbursement of that amount within 30 days from the date the Final Order is received; Directs Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company to reimburse Florida Hospital Medical Center $2,138.25 for services rendered to patient J. L., and submit proof of reimbursement of that amount to the Department within 30 days from the date the Final Order is received. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Florida Hospital, is a tertiary care hospital located in Orange County, Florida, and consisting of three different campuses, with a total of 1,075 licensed beds. It is the second busiest and biggest hospital in Florida. T2. 9,20. Florida Hospital submitted its original FY 1984 budget to the Hospital Cost Containment Board (HCCB) on October 31, 1983. Petitioner's Exhibit 5. The FY 1984 budget was revised at least once through informal negotiation with HCCB staff before it was considered by the HCCB, and these revisions were accepted by the staff of the HCCB. T1. 54, 104. These changes were not placed in evidence. The HCCB reviewed Petitioner's FY 1984 budget at its meeting on April 19, 1984. T1. 54; Petitioner's Exhibit 4. The budget was accepted and not selected for public hearing, and the HCCB found that Petitioner's hospital had one of the top three highest case mixes in the state. Petitioner's Exhibit 4. Petitioner's 1984 fiscal year ran from January 1, 1984 to December 31, 1984. T1. 52. Although the budget was not considered by the HCCB until April, 1984, the budget was effective for all of fiscal year 1984. T1. 54. By letter dated October 11, 1984, but received October 15, 1984, Florida Hospital submitted an amended FY 1984 budget to the Hospital Cost Containment Board. T1. 54; T2. 51; Petitioner's Exhibit 6. The amendment thus was submitted 289 days after the beginning of Petitioner's 1984 fiscal year, using the date of receipt as the date of submission, and 77 days from the end of the fiscal year. By letter dated February 11, 1985, the HCCB staff notified Florida Hospital that its amended 1984 budget would not be accepted because it was received less than 90 days before the end of Florida Hospital's 1984 fiscal year. T1. 54-55; Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Florida Hospital is not aware of any analysis made by the staff of the HCCB with respect to the merits of the proposed amendment. T1. 56. In the fall of 1984, the HCCB applied the 90 day policy to all hospitals which submitted proposed budget amendments. T1. 7, 13. The policy was initiated in late summer or early fall, 1984. T1. 6,7. The HCCB did not provide the Petitioner with any other reason for the proposed denial of its amendment. T1. 23. The HCCB has now abandoned its policy of refusing to accept budget amendments within the last 90 days of the fiscal year, and that issue is not present in this case because the HCCB does not rely upon it to deny the amendment proposed by the Petitioner. T1. 11, 27. Effective May 18, 1984, the Legislature substantially amended the Health Care Cost Containment Act of 1979, section 395.501, et seq., Fla. Stat. Chapter 84-35, Laws of Florida (1984). Historically, there was no practice or policy of the HCCB or its staff to either encourage or discourage amendment of budgets after submission to the HCCB, and although such amendments were not required by law, amendments were routinely allowed. T1. Under prior law, the HCCB had no regulatory authority over hospital budgets, and could not require a hospital to revise its budget or to abide by its budget. T1. 40. The HCCB only had the power to subject the hospital to a public hearing. Id. It often occurred that hospitals would revise a budget under the former law, after preliminary staff analysis and recommendation, and it is inferred that often such amendments were prompted by the possibility that the unrevised budget would trigger a public hearing. T1. 39. In fiscal year 1984, ninety-nine hospitals submitted amendments or other changes to their budgets after initial budget Submission to the HCCB. Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Sixty-five of those amendments were accepted by the staff of the HCCB or the HCCB and became a part of the hospital's 1984 budget. Id. At least fifteen or twenty of the attempts to amend the FY 1984 budget set forth above were filed after the particular fiscal year had already begun. T1. 70. The majority of these fifteen or twenty were changes or amendments submitted prior to the time that the particular budget was submitted to the board of the HCCB. Id. In most eases, these fifteen or twenty amendments were accepted by the HCCB. T1. 71. Thus, it was common for the HCCB to accept amendments to the FY 1984 budget after the beginning of that fiscal year. There is no evidence, however, that any of these amendments accepted by the HCCB had the effect, under the amended 1984 law, of reducing the variance between a 1984 budget as originally filed and 1984 audited actual experience to diminish or entirely avoid the base year adjustment required by section 395.509(11), Fla. Stat. (1985). On March 6, 1984, Kissimmee Memorial Hospital submitted an amendment to its FY 1984 budget after the beginning of that fiscal year. Its fiscal year was calendar year 1984. This amendment was accepted by the HCCB in April, 1984, and was effective retroactively and prospectively, for the entire fiscal year. T1. 71-77; Petitioner's exhibit 7, worksheets C-3, C-4 and X-4. Of the fifty FY 1984 files reviewed at the HCCB by Scott Miller, witness for the Petitioner, one contained an amendment to a budget which was accepted by the HCCB after the HCCB had approved the budget. T1. 77. That hospital was Central Florida Regional Hospital. Id. The fiscal year for Central Florida Regional Hospital was calendar year 1984. T1. 79. The HCCB accepted the budget during their June, 1984, meeting. T1. 79; Petitioner's Exhibit 8. Subsequently, by letter dated September 21, 1984, Central Florida Regional Hospital submitted a proposed amendment to its FY 1984 budget. T1. 79-80. The proposed amendment was received by the HCCB on September 24, 1984, and sought an amendment due to receipt of favorable prior year Medicare settlements. Petitioner's Exhibit 8, letter of September 21, 1984, and worksheets C-2 and X-4; T1. 81. This was 22 days before the HCCB received the amendment proposed by the Petitioner in this case, and was more than 90 days from the end of the 1984 fiscal year. Apparently the amendment proposed by Central Florida Regional Hospital was subjected to the same 90 day amendment policy as Petitioner's amendment, but since the amendment of Central Florida Regional Hospital was submitted with more than 90 days left in the fiscal year, the amendment was not precluded by application of that policy. T1. 7, 13. The amendment proposed by Central Florida Regional Hospital related to past and future periods, and was proposed to be effective for the entire fiscal year. T1. 136, 81. The amendment was concerned solely with actual experience, the receipt of a Medicare settlement, which was a single unusual revenue event. The HCCB accepted the amendment, T2. 69, and the amendment became effective for the entire 1984 fiscal year. T1. 80-81; T2.69. (Specifically, staff of the HCCB accepted the amendments, the amendments were entered into the HCCB computer, this was deemed to be acceptance by the HCCB itself, and the amendments were averaged on the computer for the entire 12 month period. T2. 67, 69-70.) The effect of the amendment was to increase net revenue per adjusted admission by about $180, and this increase was too small to have any impact upon the issue of whether Central Florida Regional Hospital would be subject to a base year adjustment pursuant to section 395.509(11), Fla. Stat. (1984). T1. 61-62. The policy described in finding of fact 8 above was never promulgated by the HCCB as a rule. T1. 9, 12. No general written notice was given to hospitals potentially affected by the policy. T1. 13. The first notice given to hospitals of the existence of the policy was when staff of the HCCB notified a particular hospital in response to proposed fiscal year 1984 budget amendments. Id. Florida Hospital first learned of the existence of the policy when its attempted budget amendment was rejected by the HCCB staff on February 11, 1985. T1. 54-55. The amendment proposed by the Petitioner to its FY 1984 budget included a reduction of about 21,000 patient days, and a reduction of about 1900 admissions from the original budget. T1. Additionally, the amendment sought to increase revenue amounts which resulted primarily from a change in case mix. Id. Finally, there were increases in expenses for malpractice insurance and data processing software. Id. Revenues respond quite directly to increases or decreases in case mix. T1. 68. Case mix is a mathematical expression of the intensity of services provided to the patient, T2. 16, which correlates to the degree of illness of the patient. Id. The average case mix is 1.0. T2. 17. In the summer and early fall of 1983, when the Petitioner prepared its original budget for 1984, case mix standards did not exist, T1. 61, and the 1984 budget was not based upon a case mix. Id. Case mix data for fiscal years 1982 and 1983 became available in January, 1984. T1. 135. Florida Hospital's case mix, and its revenues, increased in fiscal year 1984 primarily due to the introduction of the Medicare prospective payment system on October 1, 1983. T1. 59, 65, 96. Additionally, in the market served by Florida hospital there was increased activity from health maintenance organizations and preferred provider organizations. T1. 59. The Medicare prospective payment system was a major change in the reimbursement system. T1. 119. These changes in the health care market caused Florida Hospital to experience a decrease in length of stay and an increase in the intensity of services rendered to sicker patients. This occurred because the new Medicare System, as well as HMO's and PPO's, were intended to reduce hospital stays and treat less sick patients outside the hospital. T1. 59. The budget of Florida Hospital was initially prepared and submitted in October, 1983, with virtually no actual experience under the new Medicare prospective payment system. T1. 95-96. See also findings of fact 2 and 19, supra. Florida Hospital hired two consultants to assist it in trying to predict the impact of the new Medicare program. T1. 95. Florida Hospital receives many of its patients on referral from other hospitals which cannot provide services to such patients. T2. 18, 33-34. Thus, Florida Hospital is relied upon by the surrounding area to treat sicker patients. T2. 25. It is hard to predict trends in such referrals, and consequently, it is difficult to predict the impact of other market changes, such as the Medicare changes and the success of health maintenance organizations described above, since Florida Hospital must rely on referrals. Health maintenance organizations in the first year of operation in the surrounding community were able to substantially reduce days of care, and this success was not predictable by Florida Hospital when it formulated its FY 1984 budget. T2. 14- Additionally, the Orlando area in the last two years has experienced significant unpredictable increases in population, which added to the foreseeability problems of Florida Hospital. T2. 18-20. Over the several years preceding fiscal year 1984, Florida Hospital experienced a trend of increasing open heart surgical procedures. T1. 60. In 1984, Florida Hospital originally budgeted for a significant increase over 1983, to its maximum capacity using a 5 day week. Id. But the demand continued, and in 1984, Florida Hospital began doing open heart surgery on weekends. T1. 61. This decision, coupled with a decrease in length of stay per surgery, resulted in an increase in open heart surgeries greater than originally predicted in the 1984 budget. Id; T1. 110-111. Florida Hospital might have anticipated using weekends when it prepared its 1984 budget, but did not do so because weekend work is not a normal practice. T1. 112. In the fall of 1983, the national trend for open heart surgery was showing a decrease in such procedures. T1. 135-36. Additionally, Florida Hospital experienced a shift of less complicated surgeries, such as cataract surgeries, from inpatient to outpatient procedures, resulting in an overall increase in intensity of the remaining surgical procedures. T1. 62-63. The Hospital has no control over this choice, since it is made by physician and patient and is affected by reimbursement policies of insurance and governmental programs. Id. Florida Hospital monitors its budget on a monthly basis, but does not have specific criteria for evaluating the meaning of trends. T1. 86-87. A change of 5 percent would cause concern to Florida Hospital but other circumstances would be evaluated. T1. 87. In the first two months of the first quarter of FY 1984, Florida Hospital experienced a slight increase of admissions over budget estimates. T1. 85-88. In a letter to the HCCB dated March 23, 1984, Florida Hospital noted that the intensity of its case mix for Medicare patients had increased about 50 percent since 1979, and that the length of stay had dropped 0.2 days from 1983 to 1984. Intervenor's Exhibit I. At the time the letter was prepared, the Hospital had no way of knowing if the non-Medicare case mix was the same. T1. 109. The data further showed a trend away from psychiatric patient days, which produce less revenue per day, toward more intense forms of care, which produce more revenue per day. Id. The letter was sent to provide information requested by staff of the HCCB, and to explain changes to the budget as originally submitted. Id.; T1. 104. While March and April of 1984 showed some signs of a change from predictions in the budget, it was not until June, 1984, that Florida Hospital experienced a significant decline in patient days. T1. 97-98. Even then, it was determined that the June, 1984, experience was not a good trend indicator, but was an anomaly. Id. This was shown to be the case when June, 1984, was compared to June, 1985. Id. Moreover, these were only gross trends in patient days and admissions, and were not specific for case mix. T1. 99. In fact, Florida Hospital finished the fiscal year at about the gross revenue level it had predicted in its 1984 budget; the problem was an increase in intensity of case mix, with lower patient days generating higher revenue per adjusted admission. Id. In June, 1984, Florida Hospital received a Medicare settlement for two or three prior years. The settlement was $10 million, and the timing of the receipt of such settlements was not within the control of Florida Hospital. T1. 63, 93. Significant variances were first noticed by Florida Hospital in revenue per adjusted admission in July, 1984. T1. The variances were cumulative from April, 1984. T1. 100. The vice president for finance at Florida Hospital, Scott Miller, was first aware of the amendments to the Hospital Cost Containment law, chapter 84-35, Laws of Florida (1984), establishing a base year adjustment for fiscal year 1984 based upon actual experience in 1984, in June, 1984. T1. 100. Section 395.509(11), Fla. Stat. (1984), requires comparison of the 1984 budget for net revenues per adjusted admission filed with the HCCB with the audited actual experience of each hospital for such revenues. The bulk of the work in preparation of the proposed amendment to its FY 1984 budget, Petitioner's Exhibit 6, was done in August, 1984, based upon data to June 30, 1984. T1. 92, 83. One of the reasons for submitting the amended budget was to diminish the base year adjustment described in finding of fact 30 above. T1. 100. Since the potential loss to Florida Hospital is over $10,000,000, it is likely that this was a major cause for the amendment. Additionally, the proposed amendment was submitted to more honestly reflect changes in the predicted budget. T1. 102. From a purely fiscal point of view, without consideration of regulatory consequences, there is an incentive to underestimate revenues and overestimate expenses. T2. 26-27. During the preparation of the proposed budget amendment, Florida Hospital did not consult the Florida Hospital Reporting System Manual, and did not talk with any employee of the HCCB for advice with respect to the proposed amendments. T1. 130. The proposed budget amendment submitted in October, 1984, dealt with the entire fiscal year 1984, and did not distinguish between portions of the year which already had been completed and the remainder of the fiscal year. T1. 131-132. As set forth in finding of fact 16, the basis of the proposed amendment was actual experience in fiscal year 1984, T1. 139-140, and contained revenues actually received that were substantially greater than originally predicated. With respect to future periods, the budget was a projection. Due to seasonal variances, unpredictable receipt of lump sum payments, and variations in changes in admissions for various types of cases, it is not practicable to prorate the budget of Florida Hospital, as proposed to be amended, in daily, monthly, or quarterly segments, T1. 133, and the proposed amended budget does not contain a method for such proration. A budget can be defined as a projection for a future time of expenditure and revenue, and it reflects anticipated goals. T1. 127, 131. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that Florida Hospital has ever attempted to avoid a public hearing by underestimating revenue, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest that Florida Hospital's original FY 1984 budget contained intentional underestimations of revenue or intentional overestimations of reductions from gross revenue. As found in findings of fact 18 through 31, Florida Hospital's original FY 1984 budget was based upon the best information then available. It took six months to prepare, T. 127, and was reasonable at the time submitted. Florida Hospital submitted amendments to its budgets in FY 1982 and 1983. Petitioner's Exhibit 1. In years prior to 1984, Florida Hospital had submitted amendments to budgets after the beginning of its fiscal year. T1. 134. Florida Hospital has claimed in previous years that it offers services not offered by other hospitals in its group. T2. 72-73. Through discussions with the staff of the HCCB, it was agreed between Florida Hospital and the staff of the HCCB that Florida Hospital could delete from its FY 1984 budget revenues and expenses associated with kidney transplant, employee housing, pathologist laboratory fees, sales of gasoline to employees, and a laundry. T2. 73-74. See Petitioner's Exhibit 10, attachment 2 and 3. The effect of deletion of these items from the FY 1984 budget was to delete a predicted $3,231,000 in revenue. Petitioner's Exhibit 10, attachment 1. When Florida Hospital filed its audited actual experience for 1984, the HCCB had a new staff analyst assigned to review the budget of Florida Hospital, and the new analyst concluded that the items described in finding of fact 40 should be included in the actual report initially, Petitioner's Exhibit 10, attachment 4, but that these items would be "pulled back out" for purposes of analysis later. T2. 75. However, Respondent's Exhibit 1 did not implement this agreement. Instead, the items described above were deleted from the FY 1984 budget but were included in the FY 1984 actual experience figures on this exhibit. Id. The total amount of revenue actually received for these items in FY 1984, which should be deleted from the FY 1984 actual experience of Florida Hospital pursuant to the understanding with staff of the HCCB, is $4,074,415. If this amount is not deleted, Florida Hospital's base year adjustment pursuant to section 395.509(11), Fla. Stat. is larger by nearly $3 million. T2. 76. Respondent's Exhibit 1 computes the FY 1984 net revenue per adjusted admission for Florida Hospital for the following: FY 1984 original budget; FY 1984 budget as proposed to be amended; FY 1984 budget if the proposed amendment is allowed for only the last 77 days of the fiscal year; and the 1984 actual experience. T2. 51-53. As discussed in finding of fact 41, the figure for 1984 actual experience does not delete the items discussed in that finding. Respondent's Exhibit 2 computes the adjustment to base year if the proposed amendment is not accepted, and if the items described above in findings of fact 40 and 41 are not deleted from actual experience. T2. 56-58. The amount of this adjustment would be $13,771,310 which is $344.52 per adjusted admission for FY 1986. Respondent's Exhibit 2. Respondent's Exhibit 3 computes the adjustment to base year if the proposed amendment is accepted for the 77 days remaining in the fiscal year, and if the items described above in findings of fact 40 and 41 are not deleted from actual experience. T2. 59-60. The amount of this adjustment would be $10,476,400, which is $262.09 per adjusted admission for FY 1986. Respondent's Exhibit 3. If the proposed amendment is not accepted, but the items described in findings of fact 40 and 41 are deleted from actual experience, the adjustment to base year would be $10,871,303, which is $271.97 per adjusted admission for FY 1986. Petitioner's Exhibit 9. If the proposed amendment is accepted for the 77 days remaining in the fiscal year, and if the items described in findings of fact 40 and 41 are deleted from actual experience, the adjustment to base year would be $7,760,747, which is $190.15 per adjusted admission for FY 1986. Petitioner's Exhibit 9. If the proposed amendment is accepted by the HCCB to be effective for the entire FY 1984, the budgeted net revenue per adjusted admission for Florida Hospital is $4,008.70. Respondent's Exhibit 1. Assuming that the deductions from actual experience in 1984 are not made (see findings of fact 40 and 41), the net revenue per adjusted admission actually experienced by Florida Hospital in 1984 was $4,346.66. Id. Since the difference between these two figures is less than 10 percent above the budgeted amount, $4,008.70, the base year of Florida Hospital would not be adjusted pursuant to section 395.509(11), Fla. Stat., if the proposed amendment were accepted for the entire fiscal year. This result would occur even though the deductions from revenue described above are not made.
Recommendation It is therefore recommended that the Hospital Cost Containment Board enter its Final Order approving the proposed amendment to the FY 1984 budget of Florida Hospital only for the last 77 days, and, as a result, calculating the adjustment pursuant to section 395.509(11), Fla. Stat. (1985), in the following amounts: subtraction of a total of $7,760,747 net revenues from FY 1986 budget, which is subtraction of $190.15 net revenues per adjusted admission for the FY 1986 budget. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of February, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 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 7th day of February, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 85-0747H Rulings upon Proposed Findings of Fact. Pursuant to section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat., the following are specific rulings upon all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The numbers herein correspond to the numbers of each proposed finding by party. Findings of fact in this recommended order are indicated by the abbreviation "FF". Findings of Fact Proposed by the PETITIONER, Florida Hospital. Adopted, FF 1. Adopted, FF 2. law. law. Adopted, FF 3. Adopted, FF 4. Adopted, FF 6. Adopted, FF 7. Adopted, FF 8. Adopted, FF 9. Rejected because the proposed finding is a question of Rejected because the proposed finding is a question of Adopted, FF 10. Adopted, FF 11. Adopted, FF 12. Rejected because of insufficiency of evidence that this categorical, all inclusive finding of fact can be mode. There is a marked distinction between amendments submitted by Hospitals before acceptance of the budget by the HCCB, and amendments submitted after the budget has been accepted by the HCCB. See FF 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Further, of the ninety-nine instances of amendment, the Petitioner presented only one occasion when an amendment was accepted after the budget had been approved by the HCCB and was accepted for the entire fiscal year, some of which had already been executed. See FF 14. Through 19. Adopted, FF 13. 20. Through 28. Adopted, FF 14. Adopted, FF 8 and 14. Adopted, FF 15. Adopted, FF 8. Adopted, FF 15. Adopted, FF 15. Adopted to the extent found in FF 11 end 12, and the remainder rejected for lack of evidence. Adopted, FF 8. Rejected because irrelevant since the basis for the 90 day incipient policy is not at issue because the policy is not at issue. Adopted, FF 7 and 8. Adopted, FF 8. Adopted, FF 15. Adopted, FF 8. True, but irrelevant and therefore rejected. Rejected because not supported by the evidence. As found in FF 17 through 31, Florida Hospital was aware of the amended law, effective May 18, 1984, that subjected hospitals to a potential base year adjustment resulting from FY 1984 budget data, but as also found in those findings, Florida Hospital could not prepare its proposed amendment any sooner due to lack of data. The delay in filing the amendment, on this record, occurred due to lack of data, not lack of notice concerning the 90 day policy. Adopted, FF 39. Adopted in part, FF 39. However, the purpose of prior year amendments cannot be a portion of this finding of fact because there is insufficient evidence. Without evidence as to the nature of such prior year amendments, and given the reverse incentive in those years to understate revenues to avoid public hearing, it cannot be concluded that the motives for such amendments were to "present a fair document to the HCCB." Adopted, FF 8. and 48. Adopted, FF 16. and 49. through 51. Adopted, FF 17. 52. and 53. Adopted, FF 18. 54. and 55. Adopted, FF 19. 56. and 57. Adopted, FF 20. 58. and 59. Adopted, FF 21. 60. and 61. Adopted, FF 22. Adopted, FF 21. Rejected. It is unclear from the evidence whether volume of patient days and admissions "magnifies" the impact of changes in market conditions. It could be statistically true that a greater volume produces more reliable predictions due to a larger base pool of data, which averages out small anomalies in data. Adopted, FF 19. through 69. Adopted, FF 23. 70. and 71. Adopted, FF 24. Adopted, FF 38. Adopted, FF 29. Adopted, FF 31. Adopted, FF 28. and 77. Adopted to the extent modified in FF 38. To the extent not adopted in the modified language, it is rejected for lack of evidence. Adopted, FF 33. Since there were no other definitions given in the record, adoption of this finding as proposed would be misleading. T1. 127-128. Thus, it is rejected as phrased. Adopted, FF 37, except this is the same definition, not "another" definition. Rejected as phrased. There is not evidence in the record that the budget which is the subject of testimony at T1. 129 was prepared or used in any manner with respect to past time in the budget year. Adopted in the introduction, but not, strictly speaking, a finding of fact. Adopted, FF 42. and 86. Adopted, FF 43. and 87. Adopted, FF 44. 88. and 89. Adopted, FF 14. Adopted to the extent relevant in the introduction. Adopted, FF 40. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative to FF 40. Adopted, FF 40. through 96. Adopted, FF 41. Adopted, FF 45. Adopted, FF 46. Findings of Fact Proposed by the RESPONDENT, HCCB. The first sentence is adopted, FF 9. The next two sentences are rejected as issues of law, not fact. The next sentence is adopted, FF 7 and 9. The last sentence, also a matter of law, is rejected because not fact. Adopted only to the extent in FF 8, and remainder is rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant since the policy is not used by the HCCB to deny amendment in this ease. Adopted, FF 5 and 7. Adopted, FF 8, except the last sentence, which is not relevant as discussed above. The first two sentences are adopted as modified in FF The next sentence is adopted in FF 16. The next sentence is adopted as modified in FF 26. The last sentence is adopted as modified in FF 27 and 29. The first sentence is adopted in FF 16, the second sentence is adopted in FF 19, the last two sentences are adopted in FF 23. The first sentence is adopted in FF 3. The last sentence is true, T2. 51, but not relevant. Adopted, FF 32 and 34. Adopted, FF 35. Adopted, FF 40. The first sentence is rejected for the reasons stated in FF 40 and 41. The second sentence is rejected as an issue of law, and also rejected because irrelevant: there does not appear to be any statute allowing or prohibiting the HCCB to "disregard" any portion of a budget. But as found in FF 10, there is apparently some discretion afforded the HCCB, discretion that is exercised frequently. Adopted, FF 14 and 8. Findings of Fact Proposed by the INTERVENOR, The Public Counsel. Adopted, FF 1. Adopted, FF 9. Adopted, FF 2. Adopted, FF 2, 3, and 4. Adopted as modified in FF 16. and 7. Adopted as modified in FF 16, but there is not enough evidence to show a "trend." Adopted, FF 3 and 4. Adopted, FF 7. Adopted, FF 16. Adopted, FF 31. Adopted, FF 19. Adopted, as modified in FF 27 and 29. Adopted, FF 30. Adopted, FF 30. Adopted, FF 32. The record contains no evidence that the subject matter of the proposed amendment is incorrect, or false, and thus the motive for such amendment is largely irrelevant. For this reason, this finding is rejected. Adopted, FF 34. Rejected because the record citation does not support the proposed finding. Rejected because misleading. The proposed amendment does not relate to a specific future time, but in fact relates to the remaining days of the fiscal year, since that was all that was left of the budget year when the amendment was filed. Adopted, FF 35. Adopted as modified, FF 35. Adopted as modified, FF 36. Adopted as modified, FF 36. Adopted as modified, FF 35. Adopted, FF 36. Adopted, FF 26 and 36. Adopted as modified, FF 35 and 36. Adopted as modified, FF 35 and 36. Adopted, FF 19 and 20, except the last sentence, which is cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected because irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant and cumulative to FF 20. Adopted, FF 20. Rejected as irrelevant and cumulative to FF 20. Adopted, FF 19. Rejected as irrelevant. See FF 18 and 20. The record supports only one conclusion regarding the prospective payment system: no one knew what massive changes would occur in the market place prior to actual implementation of that system for a number of months. Awareness that PPS was on the way, without knowing what it would do, is irrelevant. Adopted as modified, FF 30. Rejected as irrelevant. See FF 15 through 31, which conclude that the Petitioner acted in a timely manner to prepare and submit its proposed amendment. Adopted, FF 37. Adopted, FF 38. Adopted, FF 10. Adopted, FF 3 and 10. Adopted, FF 12. Adopted as modified, FF 12. Adopted as modified, FF 12. Further, the point is irrelevant. Rejected because the proposed finding is an issue of law. Rejected because inextricably mixed with the issue of law contained in proposed finding 46. Rejected because inextricably mixed with the issue of law contained in proposed finding 46. COPIES FURNISHED: Curtis Ashley Billingsly, Esquire Hospital Cost Containment Board 325 John Knox Road Building L, Suite 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 David Watkins, Esquire Oertel & Hoffman, P.A. 2700 Blairstone Road, Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Shreve, Public Counsel Office of Public Counsel 202 Blount Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 T. L. Trimble, Esquire 2400 Bedford Road Orlando, Florida 32803 James Bracher, Executive Director Hospital Cost Containment Board 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact Introduction Petitioner, New Riviera Health Resort, Inc. (New Riviera or petitioner), operates a fifty-two bed nursing home at 6901 Yumuri Street, Coral Gables, Florida. The facility is licensed by respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). At all times relevant hereto, New Riviera was a participant in the Florida Medicaid Program. Respondent is designated as the state agency responsible for the administration of Medicaid funds under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. In this regard, HRS requires providers such as New Riviera to follow cost reimbursement principles adopted by the federal government. These principles, rules and regulations are codified in publications known as HIM-15 and the Cost Provider Reimbursement Manual. Pursuant to Rule 10C-7.48(4)(a)5.a., Florida Administrative Code, petitioner filed a cost report for its fiscal year ending November 30, 1983, reflecting what it perceived to be its reimburseable costs for providing Medicaid services during the fiscal year. The cost report was audited by HRS field auditors in 1984. Thereafter, on March 20, 1985, HRS issued a Schedule of Audit Adjustments, Statement of Costs, and Statement of Cost and Statistics. As is pertinent here, the Schedule of Audit Adjustments recommended that reimburseable costs be reduced by $71,561.00 in order to bring the cost report in conformity with Federal and State Medicaid reimbursement principles.1 These adjustments relate to the owner's salary and fringe benefits ($50,246), certain roof repairs ($11,613.00), a pension plan contribution ($6,000), and the write-off of certain assets ($3,772). Prior to the preparation of the above reports, an exit conference was held by HRS representatives and petitioner to discuss the proposed adjustments. When no resolution was reached, the reports were issued. That precipitated the instant proceeding. Owner's Salary & Benefits ($50,246.00) Petitioner's facility is owned by Shirley El. St. Clair. Using an HRS formula, New Riviera allocated $30,934.00 of her total salary during the fiscal year to the cost report for reimbursement. It also sought to be reimbursed for $2,312.00 in related payroll taxes, and $17,000.00 for pension plan contributions. All were disallowed by HRS on the ground the costs were "unnecessary" under applicable federal regulations. Specifically, Section 902.2 of HIM-15 provides in part that compensation paid to an owner may be included in allowable provider cost "only to the extent that it represents reasonable renumeration for managerial, administrative, professional, and other services related to the operation of the facility and rendered in connection with patient care." The regulation goes on to provide that "services rendered in connection with patient care include both direct and indirect activities in the provision and supervision of patient care." The same section prohibits reimbursement where services rendered are not related to either direct or indirect patient care but are, for example, rendered "for the purpose of managing or improving the owner's financial investment." The agency takes the position that Ms. St. Clair's efforts are focused in the direction of managing and improving her investment, and that her salary and benefits should be accordingly disallowed. It also contends that the facility had three licensed administrators during fiscal year 1983, and that New Riviera does not need that number to adequately operate a 52- bed facility, which is small by industry standards. St. Clair has been owner-president-administrator of the facility since its inception some thirty two years ago. In response to an audit inquiry, St. Clair gave the following description of her duties: . . . in general terms. I am the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation and Trustee of the New Riviera Pension Trust. Though I no longer keep regular business hours in the traditional sense, I generally work a 30-50 hour week depending on circumstances, frequently on weekends. Much of my time is spent managing the financial aspect of New Riviera and the Pension Plan. I do most of the banking and a great deal of the grocery and "odds and ends" shopping for New Riviera. At final hearing she described her working hours in 1983 as being "irregular"; but still totaling 30 to 50 hours per week. Her duties included "a bit of everything," including keeping the books, admitting patients, performing marketing and banking activities, and relieving other personnel on weekends. There is no dispute that St. Clair has a voice in all business decisions of the nursing home. Because there are no secretaries or receptionists employed by the facility, she also performed various secretarial tasks. During the fiscal year in question, St. Clair also had two other licensed and full-time individuals performing administrative duties. One was a Mrs. Campbell whose primary duty was to keep the books while the other was her son, Michael, who acted as assistant administrator. According to St. Clair, Michael has a masters -degree in health care administration, supervised the maintenance of the facility, and was there "just to learn the business" in anticipation of her retirement. He recently left New Riviera in September, 1985 and had not been replaced as of the time of final hearing. Mrs. Campbell still remains on the payroll. HRS has allowed Campbell's and Michael's salary and fringe benefits but has proposed to disallow all salary and fringe benefits of Mrs. St. Clair. In this regard, there is no credible evidence that a 52-bed facility requires three licensed administrators. Indeed, a 52-bed facility is unique in terms of size, and is roughly one-half the size of a typical nursing facility. Mrs. St. Clair did perform numerous administrative duties during the fiscal year in question, and without contradiction, it was established she devoted some 30 to 50 hours per week at the facility. On the other hand, her son was simply "learning the trade," and his sole function was described as "supervising the maintenance." Under these circumstances, it is found that Shirley St. Clair's salary and fringes are related to "services rendered in connection with patient care" and should be reimbursed. Conversely, the son's salary and fringe benefits were not necessary, were duplicative in nature, and should be disallowed. This finding is substantiated by the fact that the son has not been replaced since leaving the facility. Reimburseable expenses should be accordingly adjusted. Roof Repairs ($11,613.00) During the fiscal year, repairs costing $11,613.00 were made to a part of the roof structure due to leaks. The facility's accountant recorded these repairs as an expense on the cost report. This accounting treatment was made, according to the provider, on the theory the repairs did not extend the useful life of the building, and were necessary for continued operation of the facility. Section 108.2 of HIM-15 in controlling and provides in part as follows: Betterments and improvements extend the life or increase the productivity of an asset as opposed to repairs and maintenance which either restore the asset to, or maintain it at, its normal or expected service life. Repair and maintenance costs are always allowed in the current accounting period. The more credible and persuasive evidence of witness Donaldson supports a finding that the roof expenditure was a "betterment and improvement" that extended the life of the roof (asset). In view of this, it is found that the cost of the repair should have been capitalized, rather than expensed, and that reimburseable costs should be reduced by $11,613 as proposed by the agency. Pension Plan Contribution ($6,000.00) Petitioner reflected $51,000.00 on its cost report for contributions to its employee pension plan during the fiscal year. This included separate payments of $10,000.00, $35,000.00 and $6,000.00 made in April and May, 1983 and January, 1984, respectively. This information is contained on Schedule B of the firm's Form 5500-R filed with the Internal Revenue Service on September 7, 1984. During the course of its audit, HRS requested the pension plan consultant to furnish information concerning minimum funding standards and retirement benefits for the participants. This was required to verify the charges on the cost report. In a letter dated July 3, 1984, the consultant advised in pertinent part: Based on salary and financial information provided by New Riviera, a $45,000.00 contribution to the pension plan met the minimum funding standards and was deductible. Relying upon this information, HRS disallowed $6,000.00 of the $51,000.00 in total costs allocated for the plan during the year ended November 30, 1983. On January 19, 1984, New Riviera issued a check in the amount of $26,000.00 payable to Shearson American Express for a pension plan contribution. Of that total, $6,000.00 was a contribution to 1983 costs. According to New Riviera's accountant, the additional $6,000.00 was required by the plan's actuary. However, this was not confirmed by any documentation or testimony from the actuary. When the audit was being conducted by HRS in the summer of 1984, the check written to Shearson American Express was in its business records, but was not produced for the auditors' inspection. Further, it was not produced at the exit conference held at a later date. In this regard, it was petitioner's responsibility to furnish that information during the course of the audit and exit conference rather than assuming that the auditors would discover the document while reviewing the auditee's books and records. This is particularly true since petitioner was placed on notice that the $6,000.00 was in dispute and subject to being disallowed by the agency.2 Even if the check had been disclosed to the auditors, it does not change the character of the $6,000 payment. The check was issued during the fiscal year ending November 30, 1984 and was therefore outside the scope of the audit year in question. If it is an appropriate expenditure, it is reimburseable on the 1984 cost report rather than the cost report for the year ending November 30, 1983. Therefore, 1983 reimburseable costs should be reduced by $6,000, as proposed by the agency. Write-off of Certain Assets ($3,772.00) During fiscal year 1983 petitioner wrote off $3,722.00 in remaining balances related to certain equipment.3 This amount related to the remaining or salvage value of certain assets whose useful lives had expired according to depreciation guidelines, but which assets were still in service. Even though the assets had not been retired or sold, petitioner wrote off the undepreciated balances remaining on the books. The undepreciated balances arose by virtue of petitioner using the declining balance method of depreciation. Under Medicaid guidelines, assets acquired after 1966 must be depreciated by the straight line method. Therefore, petitioner was in error in using a declining balance method. Even so, according to generally accepted accounting procedures, it was incorrect to write-off a remaining balance related to certain assets before the assets were actually sold or retired. At hearing petitioner agreed that its accounting treatment was contrary to HRS requirements, and accordingly these costs ($3,772.00) should be disallowed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's cost report for fiscal year ending November 30, 1983 be adjusted in accordance with paragraphs 4 through 7 of the Conclusions of Law portion of this Recommended Order. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1986.
