The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether two Petitions for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute are entitled to be considered on the merits, or whether, instead, they should be dismissed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency with exclusive jurisdiction to resolve reimbursement disputes between health care providers and carriers under section 440.13(7), Florida Statutes (2019),2/ part of the Workers' Compensation Law. Dr. Aponte is a physician. As such, he is a health care provider, as defined in section 440.13(1)(g). Dr. Aponte operates a business called Body Contouring, Inc., at which he provides medical services to patients, including injured workers. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, The Hartford Medical Bill Processing Center, and Twin City Fire Insurance Company are carriers, as defined in section 440.13(1)(c). At issue in both cases are bills submitted by Dr. Aponte to one of the referenced carriers for services provided to injured workers, which were paid, in part, and adjusted by the carrier. In each case, Dr. Aponte was notified of the adjustments to each bill by means of an Explanation of Bill Review (EOBR) from the carrier explaining why his bill was not fully paid. If a health care provider such as Dr. Aponte is dissatisfied with a carrier's adjustment or disallowance of charges on a bill for services to an injured worker, the provider's recourse is to serve a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute on the Department within 45 days after the provider receives the EOBR. In both consolidated cases, Dr. Aponte seeks to contest certain carrier adjustments to bills submitted for services he rendered to injured workers. The specific adjustments he seeks to contest are reductions to his charges that were explained in EOBRs as being made pursuant to a contractual arrangement. Each EOBR making this adjustment identified a preferred provider organization (PPO) network--Coventry Pend and Transmit, or Coventry P&T--and each EOBR explained that the PPO reduction was made pursuant to the terms of Dr. Aponte's/Body Contouring, Inc.'s contract with Aetna. Dr. Aponte seeks to contest these PPO reductions because he claims that the contract with Aetna was terminated. The merits of the reimbursement disputes are not at issue, however. The sole issue presented is whether the Department should accept Dr. Aponte's petitions and proceed to resolve the reimbursement disputes presented. Case No. 19-1517 On May 2, 2018, an injured worker had a 15-minute outpatient office visit with Dr. Aponte at Body Contouring, Inc. Dr. Aponte submitted a bill for the 15-minute outpatient office visit to the employer's carrier. The billed amount was $125.00. The bill was adjusted by the carrier for two reasons explained in an EOBR issued on May 11, 2018. The carrier reduced the charge because it exceeded the fee schedule allowance in the Florida Workers Compensation Health Care Provider Reimbursement Manual (Provider Manual). The carrier also reduced the charge by an additional $25.37, based on a written contractual arrangement. The EOBR identified the "PPO Network" as Coventry Pend and Transmit, or Coventry P&T, and the explanatory notes indicated that the Coventry P&T PPO reduction was "in accordance with your Aetna contract." After the two adjustments, Dr. Aponte was paid $54.63. The May 11, 2018, EOBR included the notice required by the Department for carrier EOBR forms. The notice specified that the health care provider may elect to contest the disallowance or adjustment of payment under section 440.13(7), and that such an election must be made by the provider within 45 days of receipt of the EOBR. Dr. Aponte did not timely serve a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute on the Department to contest the adjustments in the May 11, 2018, EOBR. Instead, he communicated directly with the carrier. Ultimately, on February 6, 2019, Dr. Aponte resubmitted the same bill to the carrier for the 15-minute outpatient office visit on May 2, 2018, with the same $125.00 charge, and asked the carrier to reconsider. That same day--February 6, 2019--the carrier issued a second EOBR. The EOBR indicated that payment of the resubmitted $125.00 bill was disallowed in its entirety, and gave the following explanation: "billing error: duplicate bill." Dr. Aponte prepared a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute on the form required by the Department (incorporated by reference in a rule), and served it on the Department on February 8, 2019. Dr. Aponte's petition asserted that the EOBR he was contesting was received on February 6, 2019, which was the date on which the second EOBR was issued. Dr. Aponte identified a single issue in dispute: whether the carrier improperly adjusted the charge by applying a PPO network reduction of $25.37. Dr. Aponte contended that "there is no contract between Luis Aponte, MD/Body Contouring[,] Inc.[,] and Coventry." However, the PPO network adjustment was not made in the February 6, 2019, EOBR. The adjustment Dr. Aponte wanted to contest was made in the May 11, 2018, EOBR. Dr. Aponte attached both the May 11, 2018, EOBR and the February 6, 2019, EOBR to his petition. He added the following explanation for attaching the two EOBRs: "A petition for resolution of reimbursement dispute was previously submitted to the FL Dept. Financial Services on 07/30/18 initiating this reimbursement dispute." The Department reviewed the petition and attachments to determine if the petition was timely served. Since the 45-day window to serve a petition begins to run upon receipt of the EOBR, the Department has a "computation of time" rule providing alternative ways for a provider to prove the date of EOBR receipt. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-31.008. One way is by showing a date stamp affixed by the provider to the EOBR on the date of receipt. Another way is through a verifiable login process. The third way is to show the postmark date on the envelope in which the EOBR was received, in which case five calendar days is added to the postmark date to allow for mail time. If the provider does not utilize one of these three methods to prove the date of receipt, the Department will use the "default" method in its rule, whereby the EOBR receipt date is deemed to be five calendar days after the date on which the EOBR was issued. Dr. Aponte did not utilize one of the three options in the Department's rule, which are set forth in the form petition, to prove the dates on which he received either EOBR. As noted above, he completed the petition by giving only the date on which he received the second EOBR. The Department applied the default method in its rule to determine the receipt date of the first EOBR, which is the EOBR that made the PPO reduction adjustment sought to be challenged. The Department determined that Petitioner was deemed to have received the first EOBR on May 16, 2018. Accordingly, the deadline for serving a petition to contest the adjustments in the May 11, 2018, EOBR was June 30, 2018, 45 calendar days after May 16, 2018. The Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute at issue in this case, served on the Department on February 8, 2019, was more than seven months too late.3/ Petitioner offered no evidence or argument to excuse his untimely submittal. Case No. 19-2653 Dr. Aponte provided services to an injured worker at Body Contouring, Inc., on October 10, 2018, and October 31, 2018, for which Dr. Aponte submitted bills to the employer's carrier. Bill for Services on October 10, 2018 On October 10, 2018, Dr. Aponte saw the patient for an outpatient office visit at Body Contouring, Inc., at which Dr. Aponte provided prolonged evaluation and management (E&M). Dr. Aponte's charges submitted to the carrier were $450.00 for the office visit and $220.00 for the prolonged E&M service. An EOBR was issued on November 16, 2018, adjusting both charges for two reasons explained in the EOBR. Both charges were reduced because they exceeded the fee schedule in the Provider Manual. Both charges were further reduced by a total of $79.91 pursuant to a written contractual arrangement. The EOBR explained these adjustments as Coventry P&T PPO reductions "in accordance with your Aetna contract." After the adjustments, Dr. Aponte was paid $260.09. The 45-day deadline to serve a petition on the Department to contest the adjustments explained in the November 16, 2018, EOBR was January 5, 2019 (using the default methodology to determine the EOBR receipt date in the absence of any other evidence). Dr. Aponte did not timely serve a Petition for Resolution of a Reimbursement Dispute on the Department to contest the adjustments in the November 16, 2018, EOBR. Instead, he communicated directly with the carrier and requested a re- evaluation of the bill. The carrier issued a second EOBR on December 31, 2018, disallowing payment of both line item charges on the resubmitted bill. The explanation in the EOBR for disallowing payment was "billing error: line item service previously billed and reimbursement decision previously rendered." Bill for Services on October 31, 2018 On October 31, 2018, Dr. Aponte saw the same injured worker for another outpatient office visit at Body Contouring, Inc., at which the patient received two injections. Dr. Aponte's charges submitted to the carrier were: $300.00 for the office visit; $330.00 for one injection; and $100.00 for the other injection. An EOBR was issued on November 21, 2018, adjusting the office visit charge and disallowing the two injection charges, for reasons explained in the EOBR. The $300.00 office visit charge was reduced because it exceeded the fee schedule allowance in the Provider Manual. The charge was further reduced by $48.16, pursuant to a written contractual arrangement. The EOBR explained the latter reduction as a Coventry P&T PPO reduction, "in accordance with your Aetna contract." The EOBR also explained that both injection charges were disallowed because the documentation did not substantiate that the services billed were rendered. After the adjustments and the disallowances, Dr. Aponte was paid $110.84. The 45-day deadline to serve a petition on the Department to contest the adjustments or disallowances in the November 21, 2018, EOBR was January 10, 2019 (using the default methodology to determine the EOBR receipt date in the absence of any other evidence). Dr. Aponte did not timely serve a petition for resolution of a reimbursement dispute on the Department to contest the adjustments in the November 21, 2018, EOBR. Instead, he communicated directly with the carrier and requested a re- evaluation of the bill. The carrier issued another EOBR on December 27, 2018, disallowing payment of the resubmitted bill for services rendered on October 31, 2018. The reason given for disallowing payment as to each of the three charges on the bill was "billing error: line item service previously billed and reimbursement decision previously rendered."4/ Dr. Aponte prepared a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute on the required form, seeking to contest the PPO adjustments made to the bills for services rendered to the same injured employee on October 10 and 31, 2018. He attached only the final re-evaluation EOBRs, issued December 31, 2018 (for the bill for services on October 10, 2018), and December 27, 2018 (for the bill for services on October 31, 2018). Dr. Aponte named the Petitioner as "Luis Aponte/Body Contouring, Inc." The instructions on the form specify that the named Petitioner must be a health care provider as defined in section 440.13(1)(b). Dr. Aponte gave a single date--January 7, 2019--as the EOBR receipt date. However, he did not select the method used to establish the EOBR receipt date, as provided in the form petition. The form instructs that if the EOBR receipt date is not established by one of the specified methods, then the EOBR receipt date will be deemed to be five days from the issue date on the EOBR. Dr. Aponte identified the issue in dispute as the PPO adjustments applied to the bills. However, neither of the re- evaluation EOBRs attached to the petition made any PPO adjustment. Dr. Aponte identified the disputed amount of the PPO adjustments as $162.69. That is the sum of the PPO adjustments made in the November 16, 2018, EOBR ($79.91), the November 21, 2018, EOBR ($48.16), and the December 7, 2018, EOBR ($34.62) (see endnote 4). Dr. Aponte did not attach any of the EOBRs that made the disputed PPO adjustments, but he did attach a letter that he identified and explained as follows: "A copy of the contract termination notice sent to Aetna has been provided."5/ The Department reviewed the petition for completeness. The Department evaluator noted that the attached EOBRs were identified as "Re-evaluation" EOBRs that did not make the disputed PPO adjustments. However, no timeliness determination could be made because the EOBRs that explained the PPO adjustments were not attached. In addition to failing to attach the relevant EOBRs, the petition was found to also be deficient in several other respects. The Department identified all perceived deficiencies in a Notice of Deficiency sent to Dr. Aponte by certified mail. He was instructed to correct all of the deficiencies within ten days after his receipt of the notice. Dr. Aponte timely responded, and cured all perceived deficiencies except one. The Department had found the petition deficient because it named as the petitioner "Luis Aponte/Body Contouring, Inc." However, the instructions on the form petition emphasize that the named petitioner had to be a "health care provider" as defined in section 440.13(1)(g). The Notice of Deficiency required a new form petition curing "Petitioner name and mailing address. This is the provider name, not the business name." The directive is not very clear. It could be interpreted as describing what is in the petition Dr. Aponte submitted ("This is"), instead of describing what should have been in the petition. Dr. Aponte's transmittal letter, listing the documents enclosed to cure the deficiencies, states that he provided a completed petition with the Petitioner's name and address. The transmittal letter was signed, with the following typed on two separate lines below the signature line: "Luis Aponte, MD" and "Body Contouring, Inc." The enclosed petition, however, named the Petitioner in the same manner as in the original petition: "Luis Aponte/Body Contouring, Inc." The undersigned appreciates the Department's concern that a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute must be submitted by a "health care provider" meeting the statutory definition. But in this instance, the Department was well aware that the health care provider was Luis Aponte, M.D., as were the carriers involved in reviewing and adjusting his bills, and issuing the EOBRs that Dr. Aponte is seeking to contest. Indeed, the Department's initial decision, set forth in a Reimbursement Dispute Dismissal, names the Petitioner as "Luis Aponte, M.D." The Department's Reimbursement Dispute Dismissal recites that Dr. Aponte failed to provide the curative documentation as required in the Notice of Deficiency. At hearing, the Department, through its evaluator who signed the Reimbursement Dispute Dismissal, testified that the sole deficiency not cured by Dr. Aponte was to name a petitioner that met the definition of a "health care provider." According to the Department, Dr. Aponte needed to add "M.D." after his name on the petition (as he did in the transmittal letter). The Department's evaluator also testified that since she determined that the petition had to be dismissed for failure to cure this deficiency, she did not go on to address the timeliness issue that could not be determined previously without the relevant EOBRs. Had the evaluator determined the deficiencies to be cured, she would have proceeded to assess the relevant EOBRs, which were provided by Dr. Aponte in response to the deficiency notice. She would have determined that the petition was not served on the Department within 45 days of receipt of the EOBRs that explained the contested PPO adjustments, and she would have dismissed the petition as untimely. Based on the Department's evidence and an independent assessment of the facts by which timeliness is determined, the undersigned finds that Dr. Aponte's petition, served on February 8, 2019, was not timely. The 45-day deadlines to serve petitions contesting the PPO adjustments explained in three different EOBRs were: January 5, 2019 (for the November 16, 2018, EOBR); January 10, 2019 (for the November 21, 2018, EOBR); and January 19, 2019 (for the December 7, 2018, EOBR). Dr. Aponte's petition was untimely, and not just by a day or two, but by at least 20 days. He offered no evidence or argument to excuse his untimely submittal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered in these consolidated cases by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, dismissing as untimely the Petitions for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute submitted by Petitioner, Luis Aponte, M.D. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 4th day of October, 2019.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner has overpaid Respondent $9713.34 in reimbursed claims for home health visit services. If so, additional issues are whether Petitioner is entitled to impose a fine of $1942.67 and assess costs of $254.70.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a Medicaid provider since 2005, and the record discloses no prior violations of Medicaid law. Respondent provides home health visit services to Medicaid recipients in their homes, which may be group homes or private homes. The five recipients at issue in this case reside in private homes. As identified in the FAR, the recipients are M. O., who is Recipient 1; A. del. P., who is Recipient 2; J. R., who is Recipient 3; N. M. de O., who is Recipient 4; and B. C. C., who is Recipient 5. (The Preliminary Audit Report dated November 8, 2011 (PAR), identifies these recipients by the numbers, respectively, of 1, 4, 7, 9, and 10, but this recommended order will refer to the recipients by the numbers assigned to them in the FAR.) Respondent stipulates that the Florida Medicaid Home Health Services Coverage and Limitations Handbooks applicable to the years in question authorize a full reimbursement for home health visit services provided to a single recipient at a specific address and a reduced reimbursement of one-half for home health visit services provided on the same date to subsequent recipients at the same address. This provision, which has been in Medicaid handbooks for about ten years, occurs on page 3-2 in Petitioner Exhibit 5. As for the dates of service at issue in this case, Respondent concedes that, at the time of receiving home health visit services, Recipients 1-4 each resided with another recipient, who also received home health visit services from Respondent on the same dates. Respondent concedes that it has received full reimbursements for the services that it provided to these coresident recipients. Respondent contends that it is entitled to full reimbursements for the services that it provided to Recipients 1-4 because Petitioner's Medicaid billing program did not allow Respondent to enter the necessary information to halve these reimbursements. Respondent contends that Recipient 5 did not reside with another recipient receiving home health visit services from Respondent for any date of service occurring from May 6, 2009, through September 1, 2009. Alternatively, Respondent would contend that, if this contention failed to prevail, it is entitled to a full reimbursement for Recipient 5 on the same ground as it is for Recipients 1-4. There is no merit to Respondent's contention as to Recipients 1-4. First, reimbursement rates are set by the home health services coverage and limitations handbooks, not a Medicaid billing program maintained by Petitioner for use by providers. Second, Petitioner has proved that Respondent could have entered on its submitted claims halved reimbursement amounts for Recipients 1-4. Third, Petitioner gave Respondent a chance to correct its claims for Recipients 1-4 without any penalty. The Amended Preliminary Audit Report dated October 31, 2012 (APAR), which reduced the claimed overpayment to $9713.34, provides: "If the identified overpayment is paid within 15 days of receipt of this letter, amnesty will be granted in regard to the application of sanctions and the assessment of costs for this audit." As one of Petitioner's witnesses testified, all Respondent had to do within 15 days was to contact Petitioner and arrange for a repayment schedule. But Respondent did not avail itself of this opportunity, clinging instead to its argument that some flaw in the online billing program entitles Respondent to full reimbursements for all coresidents to whom it provided home health visit services. Assuming, strictly for the sake of discussion, that something was wrong with the online billing program, the amnesty offer constitutes the repair of the program and the restoration of Respondent to the point of submission (or resubmission) of the subject reimbursement claims. By not accepting the offer, Respondent essentially refuses to use the repaired program and unreasonably repeats its demand that it be relieved from a longstanding limitation on Medicaid reimbursement of home health visit services. As for Recipient 5, the dispute is whether this recipient coresided with another recipient receiving home health visit services from Respondent. The PAR found a problem with four recipients, including Recipient 5, but, after examining documentation provided by Respondent, Petitioner dropped the overpayment claims arising out of the other three recipients, but not Recipient 5. Relying on information contained in the Florida Medicaid database, which is known as FLMMIS, Petitioner determined that Recipient 5 coresided with another recipient. Although each recipient is required to provide updated residential information when appropriate, it is possible that Recipient 5 may not have timely done so. For its part, though, Respondent did not have documentation showing where the home health visit services were provided. Respondent instead relied on Recipient 5's Plan of Care, which is typically completed by the physician and presumably focuses more on the treatment plan than the recipient's place of residence. The record does not reveal the date of the Plan of Care on which Respondent relied, nor how often these plans are updated. Petitioner's staff tried to verify the address in Recipient 5's Plan of Care, but were unable to do so. On these facts, the addresses on FLMMIS control. It is unclear what role a recipient's address plays in a plan of care, but a recipient's address in FLMMIS is crucial because it is used to establish and maintain the recipient's Medicaid eligibility. A service log contemporaneously documenting the location that a provider visited to provide home health visit services probably would have sufficed to overcome the evidentiary force of the FLMMIS and FAR, which, as noted below, is evidence of the overpayment, but a mere plan of care cannot overcome this evidence. Having determined that Petitioner has proved that Recipient 5 coresided with another recipient of home health visit services from Respondent on the dates in question, Respondent's alternative argument, which is the billing argument that it used for Recipients 1-4, is rejected on the same grounds. Lastly, Petitioner has proved all factual grounds for imposing a fine of $1942.67 and assessing investigative costs of $254.70.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order finding a total overpayment of $9713.34, imposing a fine of $1942.67, and assessing costs of $254.70. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 27th day of September, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Enrique F. Vazquezbello Amer-Cu Home Care, Inc. Suite 210 3271 Northwest 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Jeffries H. Duvall, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Stuart Williams, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Mail Stop 1 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
