The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether Petitioner is entitled to repayment for alleged Medicaid overpayments to Respondent; and, if so, the amount of the overpayment to be repaid; (2) the amount of any fine to be imposed against Respondent; and (3) the amount of any investigative, legal, and expert witness costs to be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the agency responsible for administering the Medicaid program in the state of Florida, including overseeing the integrity of that program. § 409.913, Fla. Stat.1/ Respondent is a board-certified family practice physician. During the Audit Period,2/ Respondent was an enrolled Medicaid provider authorized to receive reimbursement for covered medical services rendered to Medicaid recipients.3/ Respondent provides medical services in a rural area to an underserved population. A substantial proportion of his patients are poor and are Medicaid recipients. The Audit As part of Petitioner's duties in overseeing the integrity of the Medicaid program, it investigates and audits Medicaid providers for services rendered to Medicaid recipients. In what is commonly referred to as the "pay-and-chase system," Medicaid providers bill Petitioner for medical services rendered to Medicaid recipients and Petitioner pays these bills, which are referred to as "claims." Thereafter, Petitioner audits those claims. The audit is conducted to determine whether the medical services rendered were appropriate for the condition being treated, whether the amounts billed for services are correct based on documentation provided, and whether Medicaid covers the services provided. If Petitioner determines that the provider was paid for services that did not comply with the Medicaid program requirements, it seeks reimbursement from the provider of the payments made for noncompliant claims. Here, Petitioner audited Respondent's medical records to verify that claims paid by Medicaid during the period from January 1, 2012, through June 30, 2014 (the "Audit Period"), qualified for payment under the Medicaid program. During the Audit Period, Respondent submitted a total of 7,093 claims for billable services rendered to a total population of 854 Medicaid recipients, for which Medicaid paid a total of $448,314.06. Rather than examine the medical service provision records of all 854 recipients Respondent served during the Audit Period, using a computer program, Petitioner randomly selected a sample comprised of 35 recipients from the total population of recipients. Respondent submitted 245 claims for the 35 recipients in the sample population. Once these 35 recipients were identified, Petitioner requested that Respondent provide the Medicaid services records for the claims submitted for these recipients. Upon receiving the Medicaid services records from Respondent, Petitioner, through its nurse consultant, Karen Reynolds, and its peer reviewer, Dr. Lisa Jernigan,4/ reviewed the claims for these 35 recipients. Reynolds' review of Respondent's records consisted of identifying the claims for which Respondent provided insufficient or no documentation, as required by the 2008 and 2012 Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbooks ("Handbooks"), to support the claims. When she determined that insufficient documentation had been submitted to support a claim, Reynolds made notations on a worksheet created for that particular recipient, regarding the insufficiency of the documentation. Reynolds made her notations on the worksheets in light red ink. After Reynolds completed her review, the records were transmitted to Dr. Jernigan for a substantive review of each claim to determine whether the documentation submitted in support of a claim complied with the pertinent standards in the Handbooks for payment of the claim. Based on her substantive review, Dr. Jernigan determined, for each claim, whether the claim should be approved, adjusted, or denied.5/ Dr. Jernigan's notations regarding approval, denial, or modification of payment for each claim, as well as the basis of her determination for each claim, were made on the worksheets in green ink and in darker red ink. After Dr. Jernigan completed her review of the claims, Reynolds went back through the worksheets and made additional notations, such as "NMN" for "not medically necessary," summarizing Dr. Jernigan's substantive review, in light green ink. For each claim that Dr. Jernigan determined should be adjusted or denied, Reynolds wrote the disallowed amount in the "dis-amt" space on the worksheet for that claim.6/ Based on the competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence, the undersigned determines that the audit was properly conducted. Dr. Jernigan engaged in the peer review of Respondent's records, and Reynolds merely served as an assistant whose role was confined to the ministerial tasks of determining whether Respondent had submitted the documentation requested by Petitioner for purposes of determining compliance with the Handbooks, and, after Dr. Jernigan completed her substantive peer review of each claim, summarizing Jernigan's determinations, as appropriate, and calculating the disallowed amounts for claims that Dr. Jernigan had determined should be adjusted or denied.7/ On the basis of this review process, Petitioner determined that Respondent had been overpaid in the amount of $4,867.97 ($19.86832653 per claim) for the 245 claims in the 35- recipient sample population. Using the statistical formula for cluster sampling,8/ which extrapolates the overpayment determined from the sample population across the total population of 7,093 claims, Petitioner determined that Respondent had been overpaid the total amount of $104,951.05. Petitioner informed Respondent of this preliminary overpayment determination through its Preliminary Audit Report ("PAR")9/ issued on November 10, 2015, and gave him the option of submitting further documentation in support of the claims that had been preliminarily identified as ineligible for payment by the Medicaid program.10/ In response to the PAR, Respondent provided additional documentation, which was reviewed by Dr. Jernigan. Based on the review of the additional records Respondent provided, Petitioner issued a FAR, dated August 8, 2016. The FAR determined that Respondent had been paid an overpayment of $4,637.45 ($18.92836735 per claim) for the 245 claims in the 35-recipient sample population. As with the PAR, Petitioner employed the statistical formula for cluster sampling to determine the alleged probable overpayment for the total population of 7,903 claims paid during the Audit Period. This analysis yielded a probable overpayment of $97,121.42, with a 95-percent probability that the actual overpayment is equal to or greater than that amount. Petitioner also sought to impose a fine of $19,424.28 as a sanction for violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G- 9.070(7)(e), and to require Respondent to pay $1,708.08 in investigative, legal, and expert witness costs, as authorized by section 409.913(23), Florida Statutes. Subsequent to issuance of the FAR, Petitioner and Respondent conducted a peer-provider meeting. As a result of that meeting, as well as subsequent discussions between the parties, Respondent was afforded several opportunities to submit additional documentation to support his claims. As a result of the documentation Respondent provided, Petitioner has further reduced the alleged overpayment amount to $72,084.43, which is now the amount at issue in this proceeding. Petitioner also seeks to impose a fine consisting of 20 percent of this overpayment amount, or $14,416.89. Additionally, if Petitioner prevails in this proceeding, it seeks to recover its investigative, legal, and expert witness costs. Grounds Stated in FAR for Denial or Reduction of Claims The FAR states four grounds, or "Findings," for Petitioner's determination that Respondent was overpaid by Medicaid for certain medical services he provided, based on cited provisions in the 2008 Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook ("2008 Handbook"), 2012 Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook ("2012 Handbook"), 2010 Physician Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook ("2010 Handbook"), 2012 Practitioner Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook, and 2014 Practitioner Services and Limitations Handbook ("2014 Handbook").11/ The FAR does not allege that Respondent committed any Medicaid fraud or abuse in this proceeding. Finding No. 1 Finding No. 1 in the FAR alleges that Respondent provided incomplete records, as defined in the 2008 and 2012 Handbooks, for some claims for which he billed and was paid, such that any payments for which incomplete records were submitted constitutes an overpayment that Petitioner is entitled to recover. The 2008 and 2012 Handbooks, "Provider Responsibility" section, states, in pertinent part: When presenting a claim for payment under the Medicaid program, a provider has an affirmative duty to supervise the provision of, and be responsible for, goods and services claimed to have been provided, to supervise and be responsible for preparation and submission of the claim, and to present a claim that is true and accurate and that is for goods and services that: Have actually been furnished to the recipient by the provider prior to submitting the claim; * * * Are provided in accord with applicable provisions of all Medicaid rules, regulations, handbooks, and policies and in accordance with federal, state and local law; and Are documented by records made at the time the goods or services were provided, demonstrating the medical necessity for the goods or services rendered. Medicaid goods or services are excessive or not medically necessary unless both the medical basis and the specific need for them are fully and properly documented in the recipient’s medical record. The 2008 and 2012 Handbooks, "Requirements for Medical Records" section, states in pertinent part: Medical records must state the necessity for and the extent of services provided. The following requirements may vary according to the service rendered: Description of what was done during the visit; History; Physical assessment; Chief complaint on each visit; Diagnostic tests and results; Diagnosis; Treatment plan, including prescriptions; Medications, supplies, scheduling frequency for follow-up or other services; Progress reports, treatment rendered; The author of each (medical record) entry must be identified and must authenticate his entry by signature, written initials or computer entry; Dates of service; and Referrals to other services. The 2008 and 2012 Handbooks, "Record Keeping Requirement" section, states: Medicaid requires that the provider retain all business records as defined in 59G- 1.010(30) F.A.C., medical-related records as defined in 59G-1.010 (154) F.A.C., and medical records as defined in 59G-1.010 (160) F.A.C. on all services provided to a Medicaid recipient. Records can be kept on paper, magnetic material, film, or other media including electronic storage, except as otherwise required by law or Medicaid requirements. In order to qualify as a basis for reimbursement, the records must be signed and dated at the time of service, or otherwise attested to as appropriate to the media. Rubber stamped signatures must be initialed. The records must be accessible, legible and comprehensible. The 2008 Handbook, "Incomplete Records" section, states that "providers who are not in compliance with the Medicaid documentation and record retention policies described in this chapter may be subject to administrative sanctions and recoupment of Medicaid payments. Medicaid payments for services that lack required documentation or appropriate signatures will be recouped." The 2012 Handbook, "Incomplete or Missing Records" section, similarly states: "Incomplete records are records that lack documentation that all requirements or conditions for service provision have been met. Medicaid shall recover payment for services or goods when the provider has incomplete records or does not provide the records." The following claims, which are in dispute in this proceeding, were denied on the ground stated in Finding No. 1: Recipient 2, claim nos. 2 and 21; Recipient 6, claim nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4; Recipient 8, claim no. 6; Recipient 9, claim no. 4; Recipient 10, claim no. 10; Recipient 13, claim no. 3; Recipient 16, claim nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 41, 43, 54, and 57; Recipient 18, claim nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5; Recipient 24, claim no. 1; Recipient 33, claim no. 9; Recipient 34, claim nos. 4 and 7; Recipient 35, claim nos. 5 and 6.12/ A total of 47 claims are in dispute on the ground stated in Finding No. 1. Finding No. 2 Finding No. 2 in the FAR alleges that the medical necessity of some services for which Respondent billed and was paid were not supported by the documentation he provided. The 2008 and 2012 Handbooks, in the section titled "Provider Responsibility," state in pertinent part: When presenting a claim for payment under the Medicaid program, a provider has an affirmative duty to supervise the provision of, and be responsible for, goods and services claimed to have been provided, to supervise and be responsible for preparation and submission of the claim, and to present a claim that is true and accurate and that is for goods and services that: * * * Are Medicaid-covered goods or services that are medically necessary[.] Additionally, as noted above, the 2008 and 2012 Handbooks, "Provider Responsibility" section, state, in pertinent part: When presenting a claim for payment under the Medicaid program, a provider has an affirmative duty to supervise the provision of, and be responsible for, goods and services claimed to have been provided, to supervise and be responsible for preparation and submission of the claim, and to present a claim that is true and accurate and that is for goods and services that: * * * Are documented by records made at the time the goods or services were provided, demonstrating the medical necessity for the goods or services rendered. Medicaid goods or services are excessive or not medically necessary unless both the medical basis and the specific need for them are fully and properly documented in the recipient’s medical record. The following claims, which are disputed in this proceeding, were denied on the ground stated in Finding No. 2: Recipient 2, claim nos. 11, 13, 19, and 21; Recipient 16, claim nos. 15, 17, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 39, 41, 43, 45, and 47; Recipient 24, claim no. 1; Recipient 34, claim nos. 4 and 7; and Recipient 35, claim no. 4. A total of 20 claims are disputed on the ground stated in Finding No. 2.13/ Finding No. 3 Finding No. 3 in the FAR states that some services that Respondent provided to established patients were billed and paid as having been rendered to new patients. The 2010, 2012, and 2014 Handbooks, "Established Patient Visit" section, defines an "established patient" as "one who has received professional services from a physician or another practitioner of the same specialty who belongs to the same provider group, within the past three years." These Handbooks define a "new patient" as "one who has not received any professional services from a physician or another practitioner of the same specialty who belongs to the same provider group, within the past three years." The following claims, which are disputed in this proceeding, were denied on the ground stated in Finding No. 3: Recipient 21, claim no. 1; Recipient 23, claim no. 1. A total of two claims are disputed on the ground stated in Finding No. 3. Finding No. 4 Finding No. 4 in the FAR states that the level of service for some claims for which Respondent billed and was paid was not supported by the documentation submitted to support the claim. The 2010 Handbook, "Medically Necessary" section, states in pertinent part: Medicaid reimburses for services that are determined medically necessary and do not duplicate another provider’s service. In addition, the services must meet the following criteria: * * * Be individualized, specific, consistent with symptoms or confirmed diagnosis of the illness or injury under treatment, and not in excess of the recipient’s needs; * * * Reflect the level of services that can be safely furnished, and for which no equally effective and more conservative or less costly treatment is available statewide[.] The 2012 and 2014 Handbooks, "Medical Necessity" section, state in pertinent part: Medicaid reimburses services that are determined medically necessary and do not duplicate another provider’s service. Rule 59G-1.010 (166), F.A.C. defines "medically necessary" or "medical necessity" as follows: The medical or allied care, goods, or services furnished or ordered must: (a) Meet the following conditions: * * * 2. Be individualized, specific, and consistent with symptoms or confirmed diagnosis of the illness or injury under treatment, and not in excess of the patient’s needs. * * * 4. Reflect the level of services that can be safely furnished, and for which no equally effective and more conservative or less costly treatment is available statewide. The following claims, which are disputed in this proceeding, were denied on the ground stated in Finding No. 4: Recipient 8, claim no. 4; Recipient 9, claim no. 2; Recipient 10, claim no. 3; Recipient 13, claim no. 1; Recipient 16, claim nos. 29, and 52; Recipient 17, claim no. 1; Recipient 21, claim no. 2; Recipient 22, claim no. 2; Recipient 30, claim no. 3; Recipient 32, claim no. 2; Recipient 35, claim no. 1. A total of 12 claims are disputed on the ground stated in Finding No. 4. In sum, a total of 69 claims are disputed on the grounds set forth in Finding Nos. 1 through 4. Medical Record-Keeping Purpose and Requirements Medical records should consist of a simple, complete, organized record that documents the patient's medical condition, needs, and the medical services rendered, so that the physician preparing the record, as well as any other physician——whether or not familiar with the patient or the record-keeping system, including an electronic health record ("EHR" system) used——is able to follow the patient's course of health and treatment. Additionally, medical records must be sufficiently complete and clear for purposes of billing, and in the case of Medicaid, for payment. For claims for services provided to Medicaid recipients to be payable under the Medicaid program, the medical records must meet the requirements set forth in the pertinent Medicaid Handbooks. As discussed above, among these requirements are that the records be true and accurate; demonstrate the medical necessity of, and level of service for, the services provided; contain certain specified components, such as a description of what was done during the visit, the patient's medical history, physical assessment of the patient, the patient's chief complaint on a particular visit, diagnosis, and treatment plan; and be comprehensible, individualized, specific, and consistent with the symptoms or confirmed diagnosis of the illness or injury treated. Dr. Jernigan opined, persuasively, that in the medical context, the term "comprehensible" means that the medical records are sufficiently intelligible and understandable such that another physician or other medically-trained individual could read the record and have a solid picture of the patient's medical history and general condition, as well as the treating physician's specific physical findings and reasons why a particular treatment or service was provided to the patient. Dr. Jernigan testified, credibly and persuasively, that when a medical record contains conflicting or inconsistent information, it is incomprehensible. If the medical record is incomprehensible, it cannot be determined to support the billed service, in which case, the claim for that service must be adjusted or denied. The Intergy EHR System During the Audit Period, Respondent used the "Intergy" EHR system to prepare and keep his medical records for his patients, including the Medicaid recipients he treated and whose claims he billed under the Medicaid program. Dr. Jernigan does not use the Intergy EHR system in her own practice. However, the components of the Intergy EHR system are the same or similar to the components of other commonly-used EHR systems with which she is familiar.14/ Dr. Jernigan explained the purpose of each component of the Intergy EHR template used to compile the medical records for a patient. The purpose of the first component of the Intergy template, "Reason for Visit," is to document the reason why the patient is seeking medical services. The second component, "History of Present Illness," serves to provide a chronological description of the issues surrounding the patient's chief complaint and the reason for the visit. In essence, this portion of the medical record documents the commencement of the patient's medical complaint; the length of time the patient has experienced that condition; its progression; effective and ineffective treatments; the specific location of the condition on or in the patient's body, including whether it is on the left or right side of the body, or both; and other information regarding the temporal and physical aspects of the patient's medical condition. The purpose of the "Past Medical/Surgical History" component is to document the patient's past medical or surgical history relative to the patient's current condition at the time of the particular visit. The purpose of the "Social History" component is to document the patient's social history or habits as related to the patient's medical condition presented at the visit.15/ The "Family History" component is to enable the provider to document any family history that may be relevant to diagnosing and treating the patient's condition.16/ The purpose of the "Review of Systems" component is to document the patient's medical condition at the time of the visit. This component includes a review of body systems involved in the patient's complaint, to determine and document whether there may be other health issues that could present with the same symptoms. This component enables the provider to document relevant information regarding the involvement of other body systems that may affect the diagnosis or treatment for the primary complaint or reason for a particular visit. The "Physical Findings" component is the portion of the medical record in which the provider documents the information regarding his or her findings resulting from a physical examination of the patient. The "Assessment" component is where the provider documents his or her conclusion, or diagnosis, as to the nature, identity, or cause of the patient's condition. The "Therapy" component enables the provider to describe and document the chosen course of treatment for the patient. The "Counseling/Education" component enables the provider to describe and document the matters discussed with the patient, such as the nature of the patient's medical condition and prognosis, the provider's chosen course of treatment or therapy, recommendations regarding the patient's actions to assist in treating the condition, and instructions provided to the patient. The "Plan" component describes the course of treatment for the medical condition and the reasons for choosing this course of treatment. The "Practice Management" component is included to implement certain meaningful use regulatory requirements. The Intergy EHR system has time-saving features, such as a "carry-forward" feature, which allows patient information from previous visits to be "carried forward," or copied and pasted, into the records for subsequent visits. Dr. Jernigan opined, credibly, that although the "carry-forward" feature is convenient, improper use or overuse of this feature can result in the records for a patient's subsequent visits containing all of the information from previous visits, rather than only the information pertinent to the particular subsequent visit. This may render the medical records outdated and inaccurate with respect to the patient's medical condition in subsequent visits. Additionally, carrying forward information from previous visits can render the records for subsequent visits incomprehensible, in that the patient's reason for that particular visit, the symptoms exhibited at that visit, and the specific treatment provided in that visit cannot be determined from the mass of comprehensive information that was carried forward from previous visits and included in the record for that particular visit. Here, the competent, credible evidence shows that Respondent was not trained in, and experienced difficulty in using, the Intergy EHR system. The competent, credible evidence shows that Respondent frequently used Intergy's "carry-forward" feature in preparing his medical records, and this was the likely cause for many of the records for his Medicaid patients including extensive carried-forward information from visit to visit——to the point that in numerous cases, it was difficult to identify which, if any, additional medical conditions, physical findings, treatments, or other services were provided to patients in their subsequent visits. The competent, credible evidence also shows that the Intergy EHR system has numerous flaws that render it difficult to use and not optimally functional in producing electronic medical records that are sufficiently accurate or comprehensible to be used for Medicaid billing purposes. As a result of the Intergy EHR system's flaws, as well as Respondent's apparent overuse of the system's "carry-forward" feature, his medical records were, in many cases, redundant, outdated, contradictory, and inaccurate with regard to documenting a patient's medical condition, physical findings, treatment, basis for services provided, and other key information for a particular visit. This rendered those records untrue, inaccurate, and incomprehensible, and, therefore, not in compliance with the Handbooks' requirements regarding documentation of services sufficient to support billed claims. Overpayment Determinations Rather than presenting evidence on each of the 69 total claims denied or adjusted on the grounds stated in Finding Nos. 1 through 4, the parties presented testimony and related evidence on selected representative claims for each Finding. The parties stipulated, with respect to Finding Nos. 1, 2, and 4, that Dr. Jernigan's analysis of Respondent's medical records, and her opinions regarding whether those records complied with the pertinent standards in the Medicaid Handbooks for payment purposes, applied to all claims for which the grounds in a particular Finding were cited as the basis for denial or modification of payment of that claim. It is important to note that Petitioner did not stipulate to the correctness of Dr. Jernigan's analyses and opinions——only that her analyses and opinions applied to all of the disputed claims denied on the grounds set forth in Finding Nos. 1, 2, and 4 in the FAR. Due to the small number of claims (two) that were denied or adjusted on the grounds cited in Finding No. 3, the parties presented testimony on each of those claims. Finding No. 1 – Insufficient Documentation to Support Claim For Finding No. 1, Dr. Jernigan testified, and Petitioner presented related evidence on, the following representative claims: Recipient 6, claim nos. 1 through 4; Recipient 8, claim no. 6; Recipient 16, claim nos. 3, 6, 15, 18, and 21. Recipient 6 Claim No. 1 Based on Dr. Jernigan's review, Petitioner denied Recipient 6, claim no. 1, for services provided by Respondent on February 29, 2012, on the basis of insufficient documentation to support the claim. The Reason for Visit noted that the patient was visiting due to "increased pains," but the documentation did not describe the location or nature of the pain, so was incomplete. The History of Present Illness component for this claim consisted of a bullet-point list of complaints, rather than a discussion of the development of those complaints over time. Additionally, this component contained incomplete and contradictory information. Specifically, this component contained a notation stating that the patient was suffering from hand pain and a range of other joint pain, without specifying which hand and joints (i.e., on the right side, left side, or both sides of the body) were painful. Additionally, the notation stated "no musculoskeletal symptoms," which conflicts with the notations regarding the existence of hand and other joint pain. The Review of Systems component for this claim also contained conflicting or contradictory notations. For example, there were conflicting descriptions of the patient's state of malaise, and conflicting notations documenting both the presence and the absence of night sweats. The Physical Findings component for this claim also contained contradictions and insufficient information. For example, the notations state both "wheezing was heard" and "no wheezing was heard"; that vomiting was observed and that the patient is to call the provider if vomiting develops; and that muscle spasms and tenderness in the back, as well as numerous trigger points, were observed, but that there was an overall finding of "normal" for the musculoskeletal system. Further, the notes did not identify whether these findings applied to the left or right side of the body, or both. The Assessment component consisted of a wide-ranging list of conditions, likely due to the carry-forward of all or much of the information from previous visits. Many of the conditions listed in this component were not supported by the information recorded in the History of Present Illness, Review of Systems, or Physical Findings components. For example, the assessment states that the patient suffers from hyperlipidemia, testicular dysfunction, viral syndrome, and upper respiratory infection, none of which are sufficiently supported by the information documented in any other component in the patient's medical history. The Therapy component states that Respondent provided pain management counseling and pain management by medication; however, the medication prescribed for the patient was not identified or documented in the medical record. The Counseling/Education component lists numerous matters on which counseling ostensibly was provided, including use of tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drugs, none of which were supported by any findings or notations in the patient's medical record. The Plan component for this claim diagnoses the patient as suffering from impotence of organic origin and suggests referring the patient to a urologist. Dr. Jernigan credibly testified that this diagnosis is not supported by the information documented in the other components of the patient's medical record, thus highlighting the point that if this diagnosis is accurate, the medical records for this claim are incomplete because they do not sufficiently document the basis for this diagnosis and course of treatment. Taking these deficiencies into account, Dr. Jernigan credibly opined that the medical records submitted to support claim no. 1 for Recipient 6 were internally inconsistent and contradictory, and lacked sufficient documentation to support the treatment provided, and, thus, were incomplete and incomprehensible. Dr. Jernigan credibly and persuasively opined that as a result of these deficiencies, the medical records submitted to support claim no. 1 for Recipient 6 did not comply with the pertinent standards in the Handbooks. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that claim no. 1 for Recipient 6 should be denied. Claim No. 2 Claim no. 2 is a follow-up visit for the same patient that took place on August 3, 2012. Dr. Jernigan credibly testified, and a review of the medical record for that visit confirms, that the documentation for this claim suffers from most of the same deficiencies as did the documentation for claim no. 1. Specifically, the Reason for Visit was incomplete because it failed to document and describe the location or nature of the "increased pains." The History of Present Illness component consisted of the carried-forward information recorded in that EHR component for the previous visit, and, as such, suffered from the same deficiencies. Specifically, it did not provide a chronological history of the presentation of the medical condition or its progression or treatment, but instead contained the same series of descriptive bullet points. Further, as previously discussed, several of the conditions described in these bullet points were contradictory. The Review of Systems component also appeared to carry-forward the same information contained in the same component from the previous visit, so suffers from the same deficiencies. Additionally, this component is inaccurate because it did not accurately reflect the patient's current medical condition at the time of the follow-up visit. The Physical Findings component also contained mostly carried-forward information from the same component in the record of this patient's previous visit, so contained the same inconsistencies and contradictions as the records submitted in support of claim no. 1. The Assessment component also appeared to be a carry- forward of all or much of the information from the previous visit, so it also suffered from the same deficiencies as the Assessment for claim no. 1. As discussed in detail above, many conditions listed in this component were not supported by the information documented in the other components of the medical record. In the Plan component for this claim, the urological diagnosis was deleted; however, the Plan did not specifically address or prescribe any treatments specific to the medical conditions identified in other components of the medical record for this visit. Taking these deficiencies into account, Dr. Jernigan credibly opined that the medical records submitted to support claim no. 2 for Recipient 6 were internally inconsistent and contradictory, and lacked sufficient documentation to support the treatment provided, and, thus, were incomplete, untrue and inaccurate, and incomprehensible. Dr. Jernigan credibly and persuasively opined that as a result of these deficiencies, the medical records submitted to support claim no. 2 for Recipient 6 did not comply with the pertinent standards in the Handbooks. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that claim no. 2 for Recipient 6 should be denied. Claim No. 3 Claim no. 3 is a follow-up visit for Recipient 6 that took place on August 15, 2012. Dr. Jernigan credibly testified, and a review of the medical record for that visit confirms, that the documentation for this claim suffers from several of the same deficiencies as did the documentation for claim nos. 1 and 2. The Reason for Visit component for this claim was incomplete because although it referenced that one of the reasons for the visit was a "medication refill," the medical record for this visit did not contain any documentation regarding the medication prescription being refilled. Additionally, as before, this component did not document and describe the location or nature of the "increased pains" also listed as a reason for the visit. As before, the History of Present Illness component consisted of carried-forward information, so continued to suffer from some of the previously discussed deficiencies. This component did not provide a chronological history of the presentation of the medical condition or its progression or treatment, but instead consisted of a series of descriptive bullet points, some of which contained contradictory information. The Review of Symptoms component also appeared to consist mostly of carried-forward information that contained the same contradictory information as with the previous claims. In addition, new contradictory provisions documented the presence of "no sore throat" and "[s]ore throat," "no cough" and "cough causing vomiting," and "[a]nxiety" and "[n]o anxiety." The Physical Findings component also contained carried-forward information from the same component in the record of this patient's previous visit, so some of the previous contradictions in the notations, such as "wheezing was heard" and "no wheezing was heard," continued to be included. Additionally, the record still did not identify the specific location——i.e., left or right side of the body——of the musculoskeletal and neurological conditions noted, so was incomplete. The Assessment component also appeared to be a carry- forward of all or much of the information from the previous visit, so suffered from the same deficiencies as the Assessment for claim nos. 1 and 2. As discussed above, many conditions listed in this component were not supported by the information documented in the other components of the medical record. Taking these deficiencies into account, Dr. Jernigan credibly opined that the medical records submitted to support claim no. 3 for Recipient 6 were internally inconsistent and contradictory, and lacked sufficient documentation to support the treatment provided, and, thus, were incomplete, untrue and inaccurate, and incomprehensible. Dr. Jernigan credibly and persuasively opined that due to these deficiencies, the medical records submitted to support claim no. 3 for Recipient 6 did not comply with the pertinent standards in the Handbooks. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that claim no. 3 for Recipient 6 should be denied. Claim No. 4 Claim no. 4 is a follow-up visit for Recipient 6 that took place on November 21, 2012. Dr. Jernigan credibly testified, and a review of the medical record for that visit confirmed, that the documentation for this claim suffered from several of the same deficiencies as claim nos. 1, 2, and 3. The Reason for Visit component for this claim was incomplete because although it referenced that one of the reasons for the visit was a "medication refill," the medical record for this visit did not contain any documentation regarding the medication prescription being refilled. This component also failed to describe the location or nature of the "increased pains" that are listed as a reason for the visit. As before, the History of Present Illness component consisted of the carried-forward information, so continued to suffer from some of the previously discussed deficiencies. As before, this component did not provide a chronological history of the presentation of the medical condition or its progression or treatment, but instead consisted of a series of descriptive bullet points. New information regarding the patient's self- monitoring of blood glucose was added, but the blood glucose levels observed at various times of the day were not listed, rendering this notation incomplete. Additionally, this component continued to be incomplete due to lack of information regarding precise location of musculoskeletal and neurologic conditions. The Current Medication component, added into the medical records for this patient on this follow-up visit, was incomplete because it did not list the medications the patient is taking. The Review of Symptoms component also appeared to consist mostly of carried-forward information that contained the same contradictory information as with the previous claims. In addition, new contradictory provisions documented the presence of "no sore throat" and "[s]ore throat," "no cough" and "cough causing vomiting," and "[a]nxiety" and "[n]o anxiety." The Past Medical/Surgical History component stated "Pediatric: Failure to thrive." Because this patient is a 73-year-old adult rather than a pediatric patient, this information is inaccurate. As before, the Review of Symptoms component contained carried-forward information from this patient's previous visits, so perpetuated contradictions previously noted, such as "night sweats" and "no night sweats," and "no wheezing" and "wheezing worse during upper respiratory infection." The Physical Findings component still did not identify the specific location—i.e., left or right side of the body——of the musculoskeletal and neurological conditions noted. Additionally, necessary information, such as vital signs and lab testing results, was not documented. The Assessment component again appeared to be a carry- forward of all or much of the information from the previous visit, so suffered from the same deficiencies as the Assessment for claim nos. 1, 2, and 3. As previously discussed, many conditions listed in this component, such as "adult failure to thrive," "vascular dementia," and "chronic fatigue syndrome," were not supported by the information documented in the other components of the medical records. The Therapy Component noted that the patient's pain was being managed by medication, but there was no notation regarding the type of medication prescribed. Additionally, the patient was directed to perform a "self-examination" with no detail regarding what part of the body was to be examined, and the "addiction counseling" notation was unsupported by any other mention of addiction in the medical record. The Counseling/Education component continued to contain extensive carried-forward information, and also contained an extensive list of newly-added counseling notations that were not supported by other components of the medical record. Taking these deficiencies into account, Dr. Jernigan credibly opined that the medical records submitted to support claim no. 4 for Recipient 6 were internally inconsistent and contradictory, and lacked sufficient documentation to support the treatment provided, and, therefore, were incomplete, untrue and inaccurate, and incomprehensible. Dr. Jernigan credibly and persuasively opined that due to these deficiencies, the medical records submitted to support claim no. 4 for Recipient 6 did not comply with the pertinent standards in the Handbooks. Accordingly, it is determined that claim no. 4 for Recipient 6 should be denied. Recipient 8 Claim No. 6 Based on Dr. Jernigan's review, Petitioner denied Recipient 8, claim no. 6, for services provided by Respondent on February 29, 2012, on the basis of insufficient documentation. Dr. Jernigan noted that much of the medical record for this visit appeared to be an exact carry-forward from the previous visit, so did not specifically address or reflect the patient's current condition at the time of her follow-up visit. Additionally, several of the components for this visit contained contradictory or clearly inaccurate information. She noted that when inconsistencies are repeated in medical records, it is very difficult to determine the patient's condition or course of treatment for a particular visit. Here, the History of Illness was again a bullet-point list of symptoms or conditions, rather than a chronological narrative of the patient's medical condition presented for this visit. Additionally, although one of the stated reasons for this visit was "infected hands after burns," this component contained the contradictory statement "no skin symptoms." Further, in the Past Medical/Surgical component, it is noted "Pediatric: Failure to thrive." Because the patient is an adult, this was an inaccurate notation in the record. The Social History component stated in part: "Abuse and Neglect: Receiving insufficient liquids and abandonment which resulted in hunger or thirst." Dr. Jernigan opined that this statement was inconsistent with the fact that the patient is obese. The Functional component describes the patient as "unable to lift more than" and "unable to drive more than," but did not contain a complete description of these limitations from which the patient suffered. Additionally, the statements "able to walk" and "difficulty walking unassisted" appeared to be contradictory. The Review of Systems also contained several contradictory statements. Specifically, the Reason for Visit component stated that one of the reasons for this visit was "infected hands after burns," but the Review of Symptoms component stated that the patient exhibited "no skin lesions." Additionally, this component stated that the patient exhibited "no polydipsia" and "polydipsia," "vertigo" and "no vertigo," and "no sensory disturbance" and "tingling of the hands and feet, a burning sensation, and numbness of the hands and feet (distal)." The Physical Findings also contained contradictory and incomplete information. For example, the stance and gait were shown as being both "abnormal" and "normal." Further, the description of the burns on the patient's hands did not specify whether they were first-, second-, or third-degree burns, and although her hands were burned, the skin was described as "general appearance was normal" and having "no skin lesions." The Assessment consisted of an extensive list of conditions, many of which were unsupported by the Review of Systems and Physical Findings components. The Therapy component consisted of an extensive list of items, many of which were unsupported by information in the other components of the medical record. For example, addiction counseling for alcohol and opioids is noted, but there was no information documenting addiction to these substances in other parts of the medical record. Additionally, "psychoactive medication management" was listed as a therapeutic item, but the specific medication was not identified and the other components did not support this therapy. Similarly, "pain management by medication" was listed, but the specific medication was not identified. "Education and instructions" also was listed but there was no description of the specific subjects. The Counseling/Education component consisted of an extensive list of subjects about which the patient ostensibly was counseled or education on this visit, but most of them were unsupported by the information in the other components of the medical record for this visit. Dr. Jernigan noted that it appeared that the EHR system "dumped" a laundry list of unrelated items into the notes for this component, making it difficult to know precisely what type of counseling and education was actually provided for this visit. Taking these deficiencies into account, Dr. Jernigan credibly opined that the medical records submitted to support claim no. 6 for Recipient 8 were internally inconsistent and contradictory, and lacked sufficient documentation to support the treatment provided, and, therefore, were incomplete, untrue and inaccurate, and incomprehensible. Dr. Jernigan credibly and persuasively opined that due to these deficiencies, the medical records submitted to support claim no. 6 for Recipient 8 did not comply with the pertinent standards in the Handbooks. Accordingly, it is determined that claim no. 6 for Recipient 8 should be denied. Recipient 16 Recipient 16 was a young male patient. During the Audit Period, this patient had numerous visits to Respondent, resulting in a total of 59 claims. Of those, 33 are in dispute in this proceeding. Dr. Jernigan testified about claim nos. 3, 6, 15, 18, and 21 as representative of her analysis and opinions regarding claims denied or adjusted pursuant to the grounds stated in Finding No. 1. Claim No. 3 Dr. Jernigan again noted incomplete documentation and inconsistencies with respect to the notations in the various components of the medical record for this claim. Specifically, she noted that in the Social History, there is a notation of "Abuse and neglect: Receiving insufficient liquids and abandonment which resulted in hunger or thirst," but this notation was not consistent with or supported by the information in the other components of the medical record for this visit. In the Review of Symptoms component, there was an inconsistent notation of "earache" and "no earache." In the Physical Findings component, no vital signs were recorded, rendering the medical record incomplete. Additionally, there were several inconsistent observations documented, including a notation of "no distress," notwithstanding that "vomiting was observed." The Assessment component contained extensive carried- forward information from previous visits, rendering that information inaccurate with respect to this particular visit. Additionally, the medications of Phenergan and Bentyl IM apparently were administered, but no dosage was documented. The Counseling/Education component listed subjects about which the patient ostensibly was counseled, such as tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drug use, but these items were not supported by information in the Social History component or in other components in the medical record for this visit. Ultimately, Dr. Jernigan determined that this claim, which was for an injection to treat nausea with vomiting, should be denied because no dosage for the injected medication was provided, as required by the Handbooks for the claim to be payable. Accordingly, it is determined that claim no. 3 for Recipient 16 should be denied. Claim No. 6 Although the Reason for Visit component referred to test results, the types of tests and results thereof were not addressed or otherwise documented in the medical record for this visit. The History of Present Illness again was presented in a bullet-point list, rather than a chronological narrative of the patient's medical condition and its progression and treatment. There was no information regarding when or for how long the list of conditions existed, or whether they existed at the time of this specific visit. The notation in the Physical Findings that there was "no nasal discharge seen" and "no sinus tenderness" was inconsistent with the Review of Symptoms notations documenting the presence of sinus pain and nasal discharge, and the notation that the oropharynx was "abnormal" and "inflamed" was inconsistent with the notation that it also was "normal." The Counseling/Education component notations stated that the patient again was counseled about tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drug use, but as before, there was no information in the other components to support this counseling for this visit. Taking these deficiencies into account, Dr. Jernigan credibly opined that the medical records submitted to support claim no. 6 for Recipient 16 were internally inconsistent and contradictory, and lacked sufficient documentation to support the treatment provided, and, therefore, were incomplete, untrue and inaccurate, and incomprehensible. Dr. Jernigan credibly and persuasively opined that due to these deficiencies, the medical records submitted to support claim no. 6 for Recipient 8 did not comply with the pertinent standards in the Handbooks. Accordingly, claim no. 6 for Recipient 16 should be denied. Claim No. 15 The Reason for Visit component for this claim did not address the reason for the patient's visit or identify the test results that would be reviewed during that visit. As with previous claims, the History of Illness component for this visit was a bullet-point list of symptoms rather than a chronological narrative of the patient's condition. Additionally, it contained contradictory information regarding the presence or absence of pulmonary symptoms. The Review of Systems component for this visit contained multiple contradictions similar to those noted in the previous claims for this patient. Specifically, there were contradictory notations regarding the presence of "neck pain" and "no neck pain," the presence of "neck stiffness" and "no neck stiffness," the presence of "sore throat" and "no sore throat," and the presence of "localized joint stiffness" and "no localized joint stiffness." The Physical Findings component lacked information regarding the patient's vital signs, and contained contradictory notations regarding normal and abnormal breath sounds and the presence and absence of wheezing. The Assessment component contained extensive information that was unsupported by information documented in the other components of the medical record for this visit. Moreover, this patient had been documented in a previous visit as weighing 168 pounds and suffering abuse and neglect resulting in hunger or thirst, so the notation that he was at risk for obesity hypoventilation syndrome appeared inaccurate and inconsistent with his previously documented condition. Taking these deficiencies into account, Dr. Jernigan credibly opined that the medical records submitted to support claim no. 15 for Recipient 16 were internally inconsistent and contradictory, and lacked sufficient documentation to support the treatment provided, and, therefore, were incomplete, untrue and inaccurate, and incomprehensible. Dr. Jernigan credibly and persuasively opined that due to these deficiencies, the medical records submitted to support claim no. 15 for Recipient 16 did not comply with the pertinent standards in the Handbooks. Accordingly, claim no. 15 for Recipient 16 should be denied. Claim No. 18 As with the medical records for previous claims, the Reason for Visit component for this claim lacked key information, such as information regarding the reason for the visit and the test results to be reviewed. The History of Illness component once again consisted of a bullet list of observed conditions, rather than a chronological narrative of the history of the patient's condition, its progression, and its response or lack of response to treatments. The Review of Systems contained many of the previously noted inconsistencies regarding the presence and absence of neck pain and stiffness and presence and absence of sore throat. Additionally, this component contained the contradictory notations of "heartburn" and "no heartburn." The Physical Findings component of this visit also contained many of the same contradictions as noted for previous claims for this patient. Specifically, there was a notation of normal and abnormal pharynx, normal and abnormal lungs, the presence of wheezing and absence of wheezing, and the presence of both an abnormal and normal gait. The Assessment component again consisted of an extensive list of conditions, many of which were not supported by information documented in the other components for this medical record. The Plan component was non-specific and did not address any of the diagnoses listed in the Assessment component. Taking these deficiencies into account, Dr. Jernigan credibly opined that the medical records submitted to support claim no. 18 for Recipient 16 were internally inconsistent and contradictory, and lacked sufficient documentation to support the treatment provided, and, therefore, were incomplete, untrue and inaccurate, and incomprehensible. Dr. Jernigan credibly and persuasively opined that due to these deficiencies, the medical records submitted to support claim no. 18 for Recipient 16 did not comply with the pertinent standards in the Handbooks. Accordingly, claim no. 18 for Recipient 16 should be denied. Claim No. 21 Claim no. 21 for Recipient 16 suffered from many of the same deficiencies as previously identified for other claims for this patient. The Reason for Visit component did not specifically identify the reason for this particular visit, and the laboratory test results to be reviewed were not identified. The History of Present Illness component consisted of a bullet-point list, rather than a chronological narrative, and it did not discuss the history and progression of the patient's condition and response or lack of response to treatment. Additionally, it contained the same or similar contradictory statements as were previously discussed with respect to this component for other claims for this patient. The Review of Symptoms component contained many of the same contradictions previously noted with respect to other claims for this recipient. Specifically, "no facial pain" and "facial pain and sinus pain," "neck pain" and "no neck pain," "no sore throat" and "sore throat," "heartburn" and "no heartburn," and "dizziness" and "no dizziness" were noted in this component. The Physical Findings component also contained contradictory information, such as abnormal and normal orolarynx, wheezing and no wheezing being heard, and abnormal and normal gait and stance. The Assessment component again appeared to be a carried-forward list of numerous conditions, such as acne, anemia, arthropathy, fatigue, thyroid issues, and obesity that were not supported by documentation in the other components of the medical record for this visit. The Plan was non-specific and did not address the diagnosed conditions listed in the Assessment component. Taking these deficiencies into account, Dr. Jernigan credibly opined that the medical records submitted to support claim no. 21 for Recipient 16 were internally inconsistent and contradictory, and lacked sufficient documentation to support the treatment provided, and, therefore, were incomplete, untrue and inaccurate, and incomprehensible. Dr. Jernigan credibly and persuasively opined that due to these deficiencies, the medical records submitted to support claim no. 21 for Recipient 16 did not comply with the pertinent standards in the Handbooks. Accordingly, claim no. 21 for Recipient 16 should be denied. Summary of Grounds for Denial of Claims Under Finding No. 1 Dr. Jernigan's overall assessment of the claims denied on the basis of Finding No. 1 was that Respondent's documentation was not sufficiently clear and accurate to enable a reviewer to discern the reason for a particular patient visit; the symptoms presenting for a particular visit; the nature, history, and progression of the medical condition; the diagnosis or determination of the medical condition; the treatment; or the therapy and counseling provided to address the medical condition. In particular, the frequent lack of key details, such as the patient's vital signs, and the frequent and pervasive contradictions in many of the components of the records rendered them inaccurate, unreliable, and essentially useless in determining the nature of the patient's condition, treating the patient's condition, and documenting that treatment for payment purposes. Additionally, the diagnoses documented in the Assessments component were rarely well-supported by accurately documented information in the other components, and appeared to be more a "basketful of therapies" that were not specific to the patient and not supported by other information documented in the rest of the medical record. As Dr. Jernigan put it, "if I was looking at [the medical record for] that specific patient, I would have nothing that would be helpful to me." Dr. Jernigan testified, credibly and persuasively, that the frequent and pervasive inconsistencies in Respondent's records rendered them untrue, inaccurate, and incomprehensible. The undersigned finds Dr. Jernigan's analysis and opinions regarding the claims denied on the basis of no documentation or incomplete documentation to be credible, accurate, and supported by the documentary and other evidence in the record. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation noted above, the undersigned has applied this analysis in reviewing each of the other claims disputed on the basis of Finding No. 1. The following table sets forth the undersigned's determination of overpayment, based on a review of each claim, for the claims disputed on the basis of Finding No. 1. Finding No. 1: No Documentation or Incomplete Documentation Recipient No. Claim No. Procedure Code Action Determined Overpayment Amount $ 2 2 99212 Deny 48.56 2 21 99213 Deny 77.34 6 1 99214 Deny 39.46 6 2 99214 Deny 39.46 6 3 99214 Deny 39.46 6 4 99214 Deny 39.46 8 6 99213 Deny 79.34 9 4 99214 Deny 48.27 10 10 93000 Deny 9.67 13 3 99213 Deny 83.35 16 2 J2550 Deny 2.05 16 3 96372 Deny 12.42 16 4 93672 Deny 12.42 16 6 99214 Deny 48.27 16 15 99214 Deny 48.27 16 16 99372 Deny 12.42 16 17 99214 Deny 48.27 16 18 99214 Deny 48.27 16 19 96372 Deny 12.42 16 21 99214 Deny 48.27 16 22 96372 Deny 13.43 16 23 99214 Deny 48.27 16 24 96372 Deny 13.43 16 25 99214 Deny 48.27 16 27 99214 Deny 48.27 16 30 99213 Deny 83.35 16 31 99213 Deny 83.35 16 32 99211 Deny 23.06 16 33 96372 Deny 13.43 16 34 99212 Deny 50.56 16 35 96372 Deny 13.43 16 37 96372 Deny 13.43 16 38 99213 Deny 83.35 16 41 99212 Deny 50.56 16 43 99212 Deny 50.56 16 54 99212 Deny 50.56 16 57 96372 Deny 14.14 18 2 J0969 Deny 2.00 18 3 96372 Deny 12.42 18 4 J1100 Deny 0.15 18 5 96372 Deny 14.42 24 1 99213 Deny 79.34 33 9 99213 Deny 77.34 34 4 99214 Deny 39.46 34 7 88150 Deny 10.00 35 5 99214 Deny 39.46 35 6 99214 Deny 39.46 Total Recipients: 12 Total Claims: 47 Determined Total Overpayment Amount: $1,810.95 Finding No. 2 – Services Provided Not Medically Necessary For Finding No. 2, Dr. Jernigan testified, and Petitioner presented related evidence on, the following representative claims: Recipient 2, claim nos. 11, 13, and 19; Recipient 16, claim nos. 15, 17, and 30; and Recipient 34, claim no. 7. However, because claim nos. 15, 17, and 30 are being denied in this Recommended Order on the basis of Finding No. 1, they are not addressed in this discussion of claims denied on the basis of Finding No. 2, and they are not counted toward the amount of reimbursement determined in this Recommended Order to be owed. Additionally, because the following claims previously have been denied in this Recommended Order on the basis of Finding No. 1, they have not been counted toward determining the overpayment amount for claims denied on the basis of Finding No. 217/: Recipient 2, claim no. 21; Recipient 16, claim nos. 15, 17, 30, 31, 32, 34, 41, and 43; Recipient 24, claim no. 1; and Recipient 34, claim nos. 4 and 7. Accordingly, a total of eight claims in dispute on the basis of Finding No. 2 have been addressed in this Recommended Order. The CPT Codes The 2012, 2013, and 2014 versions of the Current Procedural Terminology manuals (collectively, "CPT Manuals") establish the CPT Codes that apply in billing services to Medicaid.18/ The following CPT Codes are pertinent to the claims denied on the basis set forth in Finding No. 2: 99211, 99212, 99213, and 99214. These CPT Codes indicate a progressive increase in the complexity of the medical visit, so require progressively greater levels of documentation to justify billing Medicaid for the service. Dr. Jernigan regularly bills Medicaid for services she provides using these CPT Codes. She is very familiar with their use and with the nature of the medical services that are appropriately billed under each code. CPT Code 99211 The CPT Manuals define CPT Code 99211 as: "Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, that may not require the presence of a physician. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are minimal. Typically, 5 minutes are spent performing or supervising these services." CPT Code 99212 The CPT Manuals define CPT Code 99212 as: Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least 2 of these 3 components: A problem focused history; A problem focused examination; Straightforward medical decision making. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are 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. Physicians typically spend 10 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. CPT Code 99213 The CPT Manuals define CPT Code 99213 as: Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least 2 of these 3 key components: An expanded problem focused history; An expanded problem focused examination; Medical decision making of low complexity. Counseling and coordination of care with other providers or agencies are 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. Physicians typically spend 15 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. CPT Code 99214 The CPT Manuals define CPT Code 99214 as: Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least 2 of these 3 key components: A detailed history; A detailed examination; Medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other physicians, other qualified health care professionals, or agencies are 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 to high severity. Typically, 25 minutes are spent face-to-face with the patient and/or family. In determining whether a service provided is medically necessary for purposes of Medicaid billing, the focus is on whether there is sufficient documentation to support the necessity of the service provided to the patient. The documentation submitted to support a claim is reviewed to determine whether there is sufficient information to demonstrate a medical relationship between the patient's condition and the treatment provided, and to justify the need for the service provided. A. Recipient 2 Claim No. 11 Dr. Jernigan denied this claim as not medically necessary because the medical record for this visit did not contain sufficient information linking the patient's condition with the diagnosis and treatment. Specifically, while the patient presented with conditions that may indicate a urinary tract infection or pelvic inflammatory disease, those diagnoses were only two in a list of 32 assessments, so the record did not clearly indicate the specific diagnosis for her condition at this specific visit. Further, the treatment consisted of a topical medication used to treat arthritis and a medication used to treat painful menstruation, rather than a medication used to treat a urinary tract infection or pelvic inflammatory disease. Thus, Dr. Jernigan determined that there was insufficient information to demonstrate a medical relationship between the patient's condition and the treatment provided. Accordingly, she determined that the service provided was not medically necessary, so the claim should be denied. Dr. Jernigan's analysis of this claim and her opinion that the supporting documentation was insufficient to demonstrate that the service was medically necessary were credible, supported by the evidence, and persuasive. Accordingly, claim no. 11 for Recipient 2 should be denied on the basis that it was not documented as being medically necessary. Claim No. 13 Dr. Jernigan denied this claim as not medically necessary because the medical record for this visit did not contain sufficient information linking the patient's condition with the diagnosis and treatment. Specifically, there were no physical examination findings that appeared to be specifically related either to the patient's condition at that visit, or to the treatment provided. For example, Dr. Jernigan specifically noted that while there was an assessment of vulvodynia and the patient was treated for a yeast infection, the medical record does not note an examination of the patient's genitalia having been performed to support that assessment and treatment. Thus, Dr. Jernigan determined that there was insufficient information to demonstrate a medical relationship between the patient's condition and the treatment provided. Accordingly, she determined that the service provided was not medically necessary, so the claim should be denied. Dr. Jernigan's analysis of this claim and her opinion that the supporting documentation was insufficient to demonstrate that the service was medically necessary were credible, supported by the evidence, and persuasive. Accordingly, claim no. 13 for Recipient 2 should be denied on the basis that it was not documented as being medically necessary. Claim No. 19 Dr. Jernigan denied this claim as not medically necessary because the medical record for this visit did not contain sufficient information linking the patient's condition with the diagnosis and treatment. Here, the stated reason for the visit included fatigue, somnolence and weakness with problems sleeping, arthralgias with muscle pain and tenderness, headache and dizziness, and snoring with acid reflux. However, the assessment contained a list of 33 diagnoses, many, if not most, of which did not appear to be related to the stated reason for the visit. Additionally, the treatment did not appear appropriate for the conditions stated as the reason for this specific visit. Thus, Dr. Jernigan determined that there was insufficient information to demonstrate a medical relationship between the patient's condition and the treatment provided. Accordingly, she determined that the service provided was not medically necessary, so the claim should be denied. Dr. Jernigan's analysis of this claim and her opinion that the supporting documentation was insufficient to demonstrate that the service was medically necessary were credible, supported by the evidence, and persuasive. Accordingly, claim no. 19 for Recipient 2 should be denied on the basis that it was not documented as being medically necessary. Summary of Grounds for Denial of Claims under Finding No. 2 In sum, Dr. Jernigan determined that the claims denied as not medically necessary did not contain sufficient information to demonstrate a medical relationship between the patient's condition and the treatment provided, and to justify the need for the service provided. The undersigned finds Dr. Jernigan's analysis and opinions regarding the claims denied on the basis of no documentation or incomplete documentation to be credible, accurate, and supported by the documentary and other evidence in the record. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation noted above, the undersigned has applied Dr. Jernigan's analysis in reviewing each of the other claims disputed on the basis of Finding No. 2. The following table sets forth the undersigned's determination of overpayment, based on a review of each claim, for the claims disputed on the basis of Finding No. 2. Finding No. 2 – Not Medically Necessary Recipient No. Claim No. Procedure Code Action Determined Overpayment Amount $ 2 11 99213 Deny 81.35 2 13 99213 Deny 81.35 2 19 99213 Deny 77.34 16 36 99211 Deny 23.06 16 39 99212 Deny 50.56 16 45 99212 Deny 50.56 16 47 99211 Deny 23.06 35 4 99214 Deny 39.46 Total Total No. Determined Recipients: of Claims: Total 3 8 Overpayment Amount: $426.74 Finding No. 3 – Established Patients Billed as New Patients As discussed above, a new patient is one who has not received any professional services from a physician or another practitioner of the same specialty who belongs to the same provider group, within the past three years. The two claims in dispute that were denied on the basis set forth in Finding No. 3, that they were not new patients are Recipient 21, claim no. 1; and Recipient 23, claim no. 1. These claims were downcoded to reflect that the patient was an established patient, rather than a new patient. The CPT Codes pertinent to this Finding are 99203, 99204, 99213, and 99214. CPT Codes 99213 and 99214 previously have been defined in the findings pertaining to Finding No. 2, above. CPT Code 99203 The CPT Manuals define CPT Code 99203 as: Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient, which requires these 3 key components: A detailed history; A detailed examination; Medicaid decision making of low complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are 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. Physicians typically spend 30 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. CPT Code 99204 The CPT Manuals define CPT Code 99204 as: Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient, which requires these 3 key components: A comprehensive history; A comprehensive examination; Medicaid decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are 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 to high severity. Physicians typically spend 45 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. Recipient 21 Claim No. 1 Recipient 21, claim no. 1 was adjusted from CPT Code 99204 to CPT Code 99214. Dr. Jernigan determined that this claim should be denied because the notations for the Past Medical History, Social History, and Family History state that they are "unchanged." This notation would not be appropriate for a new patient, but would be appropriate for an established patient. Dr. Jernigan noted that had she determined this claim was for a new patient, it would have been denied, rather than adjusted downward, because the supporting documentation did not contain the patient's comprehensive history, which is one of the three components required in the documentation to support a claim billed under CPT Code 99204. Instead of denying this claim, Dr. Jernigan determined that under the documentation submitted, it should be billed under CPT Code 99214, as a claim for an established patient having a medical problem of moderate to high severity, and for which two of the three components are documented in the medical record. Dr. Jernigan's analysis of this claim and her opinion that the supporting documentation was insufficient to support billing the claim as one for a new patient, but would support billing the claim as one for an established patient, was credible, supported by the evidence, and persuasive. Accordingly, claim no. 1 for Recipient 21 should be billed under CPT Code 99214, rather than CPT Code 99204. Recipient 23 Claim No. 1 Dr. Jernigan determined that this claim should be denied because the notations for the Past Medical History, Social History, and Family History state that they are "unchanged." This notation would not be appropriate for a new patient, but would be appropriate for an established patient. Accordingly, she reviewed the claim as one for an established patient, and, based on the documentation in the medical record, determined that the presented problem was one of low to moderate severity and at least two of the required components were present in the record. For these reasons, Dr. Jernigan determined that this claim should be billed under CPT Code 99213, rather than under CPT Code 99203. Dr. Jernigan's analysis of this claim and her opinion that the supporting documentation was insufficient to support billing the claim as one for a new patient, but would support billing the claim as one for an established patient was credible, supported by the evidence, and persuasive. Accordingly, claim no. 1 for Recipient 23 should be billed under CPT Code 99213, rather than CPT Code 99203. Summary of Grounds for Downcoding Claims Under Finding No. 3 In sum, Dr. Jernigan's determined that the notations in the Past Medical History, Family History, and Social History components of the documentation submitted for these claims, as well as the lack of other components in the record, did not support billing these claims as new patient claims, but would support billing them as established patient claims. The undersigned finds Dr. Jernigan's analysis and opinion regarding the downcoding of these claims to bill them as established, rather than new, patient claims to be credible, accurate, and supported by evidence in the record. The following table sets forth the undersigned's determination of overpayment, based on a review of each claim, for the claims disputed on the basis of Finding No. 3. Finding No. 3 – Incorrectly Billed as New Patient Recipient No. Claim No. Procedure Code Action Determined Overpayment Amount $ 21 1 99204 Adjusted to 99214 25.38 23 1 99203 Adjusted to 99213 37.66 Total Recipients: 2 Total Claims: 2 Determined Total Overpayment Amount: $63.04 Finding No. 4 – Level of Service Not Supported Claims denied on the grounds set forth in Finding No. 4 of the FAR did not contain documentation sufficient to support the higher level of service billed, but did contain documentation sufficient to support a lower level of service than that billed. CPT Codes 99212, 99213, 99214, and 99204 are pertinent to this Finding, and have been previously defined in the findings pertaining to Findings No. 2 and 3, above. As previously noted, CPT Codes 99212, 99213, and 99214 indicate a progressive increase in the complexity of the medical visit, so require progressively greater levels of documentation to justify billing Medicaid for the service. For Finding No. 4, Dr. Jernigan testified, and Petitioner presented related evidence on, the following representative claims: Recipient 8, claim no. 4; Recipient 9, claim no. 2; Recipient 10, claim no. 3; Recipient 13, claim no. 1; and Recipient 16, claim nos. 29 and 52. Recipient 8 Claim No. 4 Dr. Jernigan determined that this claim should be adjusted from CPT Code 99214 to CPT Code 99213. Despite the extensive description in the Reason for Visit component and the extensive list of conditions noted in the Assessment component, the visit ultimately was to address a urinary tract infection, which is a problem of low to moderate complexity and involved the components which would justify billing the claim under CPT Code 99213. Dr. Jernigan's analysis and opinion regarding this claim was credible, supported by the evidence, and persuasive. Accordingly, it is determined that claim no. 4 for Recipient 8 is correctly adjusted from CPT Code 99214 to CPT Code 99213. Recipient 9 Claim No. 2 Dr. Jernigan determined that this claim should be adjusted from CPT Code 99214 to CPT Code 99213. This visit was a follow-up without any significant changes in the findings documented in the components of previous visits. There was no documentation in any of the components for this visit which would indicate that it involved problems that were of moderate to high complexity, and that it entailed components that would justify billing the claim under CPT Code 99214. The documentation for this visit indicated a problem of low to moderate complexity and entailed the components that would justify billing the claim under CPT Code 99213. Dr. Jernigan's analysis and opinion regarding this claim was credible, supported by the evidence, and persuasive. Accordingly, it is determined that claim no. 2 for Recipient 9 is correctly adjusted from CPT Code 99214 to CPT Code 99213. Recipient 10 Claim No. 3 Dr. Jernigan determined that this claim should be adjusted from CPT Code 99214 to CPT Code 99213. This claim entailed extensive internal inconsistencies and contained numerous contradictory notations, which affect the reviewer's ability to determine the purpose of the visit and the appropriate type and level of treatment. Here, Dr. Jernigan opined that this visit ultimately was a follow-up for hypertension and diabetes, and that the patient's condition had not changed from the previous visit. The documentation did not indicate that this visit entailed problems that were of moderate to high complexity, nor did it document the components would justify billing the claim under CPT Code 99214. Rather, the documentation for this visit indicated a problem of low to moderate complexity and involved the components that would justify billing the claim under CPT Code 99213. Dr. Jernigan's analysis and opinion regarding this claim was credible, supported by the evidence, and persuasive. Accordingly, it is determined that claim no. 3 for Recipient 10 is correctly adjusted from CPT Code 99214 to CPT Code 99213. Recipient 13 Claim No. 1 Dr. Jernigan determined that this claim should be adjusted from CPT Code 99204 to CPT Code 99214. The documentation for this claim did not support billing the visit under CPT Code 99204, for a new patient, because it did not contain sufficient information that a comprehensive examination was performed, which is required by this CPT Code. Additionally, the documentation lacked any substantial discussion of the patient's Social History, Family History, or Past Medical History——information that, according to Dr. Jernigan, would be particularly important for a new patient——especially one who, per the documentation in the record, was sexually abused. Further, the Past Medical/Surgical History, Social History, and Family History components all listed this patient's condition as "unchanged," indicating that the patient must have been an established, rather than a new, patient. These deficiencies in the record for this claim did not justify billing the claim under CPT Code 99204, for a new patient. However, due to the severity of the patient's condition, the treatment documented in the record for this visit entailed the components under CPT Code 99214 for an established patient. Dr. Jernigan's analysis and opinion regarding this claim was credible, supported by the evidence, and persuasive. Accordingly, it is determined that claim no. 1 for Recipient 13 is correctly adjusted from CPT Code 99204 to CPT Code 99214. Recipient 16 Claim No. 29 Dr. Jernigan determined that this claim should be adjusted from CPT Code 99214 to CPT Code 99213. Dr. Jernigan found much of the information documented for this claim to be incredible. For example, the patient is a 19-year old male, but the notations in the record state such things as "parental concerns about baby's growth" and "assessment for menopause performed." Dr. Jernigan ultimately determined that this visit was a follow-up to address hypothyroidism and that thyroid medication was prescribed as a treatment for this condition. This visit concerned a problem of low to moderate complexity and involved the components that would justify billing the claim under CPT Code 99213, rather than a more complex problem that would justify the level of service under CPT Code 99214. Dr. Jernigan's analysis and opinion regarding this claim was credible, supported by the evidence, and persuasive. Accordingly, it is determined that claim no. 29 for Recipient 16 is correctly adjusted from CPT Code 99214 to CPT Code 99213. Claim No. 52 Dr. Jernigan determined that this claim should be adjusted from CPT Code 99213 to CPT Code 99212. Here, the Reason for Visit stated that the visit was, among other things, to address a skin rash. Although the documentation for this claim contained numerous inconsistencies, Dr. Jernigan was able to discern that the patient had two dermatological conditions that would support the prescription of Doxycycline. According to Dr. Jernigan, skin issues are relatively easy to see and treat, which would justify billing this claim under CPT Code 99212, for a minor problem that would entail the components for that CPT Code, rather than a more complex problem that would justify the level of service under CPT Code 99213. Dr. Jernigan's analysis and opinion regarding this claim was credible and persuasive. Accordingly, it is determined that claim no. 52 for Recipient 16 is correctly adjusted from CPT Code 99213 to CPT Code 99212. Summary of Grounds for Denial of Claims Under Finding No. 4 Dr. Jernigan's overall assessment of the claims denied on the basis of Finding No. 4 was that while a basis for billing Medicaid could be discerned from the medical records for the claim, the documentation in those records was not consistent with the symptoms or confirmed diagnosis, so did not reflect the level of service that could safely be furnished. The undersigned finds Dr. Jernigan's analysis and opinions regarding the claims denied on the grounds stated in Finding No. 4 to be credible, supported by the evidence, and persuasive. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation noted above, the undersigned has applied this analysis in reviewing each of the other claims disputed on the basis of Finding No. 4. The following table sets forth the undersigned's determination of overpayment, based on a review of each claim, for the claims disputed on the basis of Finding No. 4. Finding No. 4 – Incorrectly Billed at Higher Level of Service Recipient No. Claim No. Procedure Code Action Determined Overpayment Amount $ 8 4 99214 Adjusted to 99213 38.79 9 2 99214 Adjusted to 99213 15.71 10 3 99214 Adjusted to 99213 36.79 13 1 99204 Adjusted to 99214 122.14 16 29 99214 Adjusted to 99213 38.79 16 52 99213 Adjusted to 99212 32.79 17 1 99214 Adjusted to 99213 23.32 21 2 99214 Adjusted to 99213 14.85 22 2 99214 Adjusted to 99213 73.87 30 3 99214 Adjusted to 99213 12.85 32 2 99214 Adjusted to 99213 32.56 35 1 99204 Adjusted to 99202 36.77 Total Recipients: 11 Total Claims: 12 Determined Total Overpayment Amount: $479.23 Findings of Ultimate Fact Pursuant to the foregoing, it is determined that Petitioner proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent was overpaid by the Medicaid program for the disputed and undisputed claims in this proceeding. Respondent defends its position that many of the claims in dispute should be adjusted downward in this proceeding, rather than denied, by asserting that the inaccuracies and lack of comprehensibility in the documentation for the claims were due to the flaws and defects in the Intergy EHR system, rather than any deficiency on his part in diagnosing or treating his patients or in properly documenting their visits. In support of this position, Respondent notes that in many cases, the documentation provided to support a claim did contain——among the many listed conditions and assessment——a diagnosis that matched the reason for the visit. There is little question in the undersigned's mind that Respondent actually provided the services in the claims he billed to Medicaid. However, the issue in this proceeding is not whether the provider did, in fact, provide the services or accurately diagnose and treat the patient's condition. Rather, the issue is whether the documentation submitted to Petitioner to support the Medicaid-billed claims is true, accurate, comprehensible, and demonstrates the medical necessity of the billed claim, as required by section 409.913 and the Handbooks. Unfortunately, due to the substantial flaws in the Intergy system and Respondent's difficulty in using that system, his records did not comply with those standards, so do not support the billed claims. As the enrolled Medicaid provider, Respondent is ultimately responsible for the completeness, accuracy, and comprehensibility of the documentation submitted in support of his claims billed to Medicaid. § 409.913(7), Fla. Stat. The Handbooks, section 409.913, and applicable rules do not recognize, as a defense to actions seeking reimbursement for overpayments, that deficiencies in the provider's records may be excused due to poor or dysfunctional EHR systems. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned found Dr. Jernigan's analyses and opinions credible, supported by the competent substantial evidence in the record, and persuasive. Accordingly, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Petitioner proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent was overpaid by the Medicaid program in the amount of $72,084.43 for the disputed and undisputed claims in this proceeding. However, the undersigned determines that Petitioner did not prove the overpayments by clear and convincing evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration, enter a final order directing Respondent to repay to the Agency the sum of $72,084.43 in overpayments. Pursuant to section 409.913(23)(a), Petitioner, as the prevailing party in this proceeding is, entitled to recover, as costs, all investigative, legal, and expert witness costs as the prevailing party is granted. If the amount of these costs cannot be stipulated by the parties, Petitioner may request a hearing solely to establish the amount of costs it is entitled to recover in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 12th day of March, 2018.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Timothy A. Alexander, is now, and was at all times material hereto, licensed as a physician by the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0035285. On June 29, 1995, the Board of Medicine entered a final order which approved and adopted a consent agreement accepted by Respondent in a prior disciplinary action (Case No. 92-11508). Pertinent to this case, the final order imposed an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00, against Respondent, which was to be paid within 60 days following the filing of the final order (June 30, 1995). The final order also required that Respondent attend 10 hours of Category I Continuing Medical Education in risk management within one year of the filing of the order. Finally, the order required that Respondent complete the course "Quality Medical Records Keeping for Health Care Professionals," sponsored by the Florida Medical Association, or a Board-approved equivalent, within one year of the filing of the final order.2 Here, there is no dispute or reason to doubt that Respondent timely paid the administrative fine imposed by the final order and that he likewise timely completed the 10 hours of Category I Continuing Medical Education in risk management required by the terms of the final order.3 Consequently, the only viable issue to resolve is whether Respondent timely completed the course "Quality Medical Records Keeping for Health Care Professionals," sponsored by the Florida Medical Association, or a Board-approved equivalent. The course "Quality Medical Records Keeping for Health Care Professionals," sponsored by the Florida Medical Association (the "Course"), is a course designed to help physicians improve their medical record-keeping skills and is divided into two phases. Phase I includes a one-hour credit for preparatory reading and a four-hour credit for on-site instruction in Jacksonville, Florida. The on-site instruction includes one hour of didactic lecture, a two-hour audit practicum, and a one-hour critique of the practitioner's existing records. Phase II is a follow-up critique, designed to be performed at three months following completion of the on-site instruction. At this phase, the practitioner is required to submit another six sets of records for evaluation (the second set), which presumably reflect the benefits of the on-site instruction. The second set of records is evaluated by the same individual who examined the first set and if deemed acceptable the evaluator would immediately notify the Florida Medical Association (FMA), which would issue a certificate reflecting completion of the course. If the practitioner's record-keeping was not acceptable, he would be accorded another three-month period to implement the recommendations, following which he would submit additional records for evaluation. Successful completion of Phase I and Phase II was required for course completion. Here, the proof demonstrates that in or about May 1996, Respondent registered to attend the Course on June 8, 1996, at Jacksonville, Florida, and that on May 9, 1996, the FMA forwarded to him the required preparatory reading material. Respondent attended and completed the June 8, 1996, on-site instruction (Phase I). By letter of August 12, 1996, two months following the on-site instruction, the FMA reminded Respondent that, at three months, he needed to complete Phase II. That letter provided, as follows: The letter is to remind you that it is time for Phase II of the FMA Clinical Excellence Program, "Quality Medical Records Keeping for Health Care Professionals". You completed Phase I on June 8, 1996. The second phase of the course will consist of a self-audit of approximately 10-20 of your own office records utilizing the same audit criteria which were provided in Phase To ensure that the objectives of the course have been accomplished, this audit is performed three months after you have completed Phase I. The three month delay is to allow sufficient time for implementation of the new record-keeping practices in your own medical record keeping system. The same faculty member who critiqued your office medical records during Phase I will provide the critique of your Phase II self- audit. You need not return to Jacksonville to complete the self-audit. At the end of three months, September 8, 1996, six (6) sets of medical records should be mailed to the Florida Medical Association, attention Suzanne Brunette, CME Projects Manager. Please take appropriate measures to preserve patient confidentiality. Your mentor will evaluate the records and report the findings to you. Upon successful completion of Phase II, you will receive a certificate indicating that you have completed the course. No certificate of credit can be issued until Phase II (follow-up evaluation) has been successfully completed. In late October or early November, 1996, Respondent submitted the required medical records for evaluation, they were successfully critiqued, and on November 6, 1996, Respondent was certified by the FMA as having successfully completed the course. Given the proof, it cannot be subject to serious debate that Respondent did not complete the Course, and could not have completed the Course (given the date he elected to take Phase I of the Course and the minimum three-month delay required between the completion of Phase I and the completion of Phase II), within one year after the Board's order was filed. He did, however, timely complete the on-site portion of the Course (Phase I) and successfully completed the follow-up critique (Phase II), with nominal delay. That Phase II and, consequently, completion of the Course occurred outside the one-year period prescribed by the final order was not, apart from the untimeliness itself, shown to be significant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which finds Respondent guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes, by having failed to timely complete the course "Quality Medical Records Keeping for Health Care Professionals," sponsored by the Florida Medical Association, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and that for such violation, Respondent receive a reprimand and an administrative fine in the amount of Fifty Dollars ($50.00). It is further RECOMMENDED that in all other respects, Respondent was not shown to have committed any offense alleged in the Administrative Complaint and that the Administrative Complaint should otherwise be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1999.
Findings Of Fact In July of 1984, Jo Ellen Dyer, submitted her resignation as a Personnel Specialist at St. Mary's Hospital, and St. Mary's placed an ad for her position. Petitioner submitted a resume to St. Mary's, with a cover letter seeking that position. St. Mary's contacted him for an interview, and he was interviewed by Gerald Gorman, Employee Relations Director, on July 25, 1984. As part of that interview Petitioner completed a St. Mary's Hospital employment application in which he represented that he did not have any physical handicaps or illnesses which in any way might hinder his ability to perform the job for which he had applied. Gorman was impressed with Petitioner. However, he contacted Petitioner shortly after the interview to explain that there was some question over whether Jo Ellen Dyer's position would be filled due to potential hospital cost reduction needs. Several weeks later Gorman contacted Petitioner to find out if Petitioner was still interested in the position. Upon ascertaining that Petitioner was, Gorman scheduled the next stage in the employment process, an interview with Gil Wright, the department head. On October 5, 1984, Petitioner was interviewed by Wright and then again by Gorman. At that time Petitioner was offered the position of Personnel Specialist subject to reference checks and a preemployment physical examination. It is the standard policy of St. Mary's to make employment contingent upon the passing of an initial employment physical that must be accomplished prior to employment and upon favorable reference checks. During the interview of October 5, 1984 Petitioner told Gorman that Petitioner wanted or needed to give two weeks' notice to his current employer, Job Service of Florida, if Petitioner was going to be selected for the Personnel Specialist position. Because of that requirement for two weeks' notice, Gorman and Petitioner agreed that Petitioner must be advised no later than October 19, 1984 that he would be hired, and November 5, 1984 was agreed to be Petitioner's starting date of employment at St. Mary's. They further agreed that Petitioner would be scheduled for his pre-employment activities the week of October 15, 1984. On October 9, 1984 Petitioner signed a form entitled "Condition of Employment" which advised him that his examination would include blood tests, urinalysis, chest x-ray, PPD, and an examination by a physician. On October 15, 1984 Petitioner came to the hospital to continue his pre-employment activities by completing various forms. Since Gorman had a scheduling conflict, he requested Personnel Specialist Andrew Thompson to assist Petitioner in completing the required paperwork. One of the forms was a personnel specialist position description which Petitioner read and then signed. That job description contained the statement "must be able to do a substantial amount of the [sic] walking throughout the hospital." On that same day Petitioner filled out a medical history form advising that he had arthritis in his neck, that he had sustained a neck injury, that he had been under a doctor's care during the past two years at the Veterans administration, that he had a VA disability, a medical discharge, and "myositis." He further indicated that he had lost no time from work during the past year. While Thompson and Petitioner were completing the paperwork, they were also engaging in conversation since they both expected to be working together as two of the three Personal Specialists at St. Mary's. Petitioner told Thompson that Petitioner, due to a spinal injury, would periodically, without warning, suffer loss of hand coordination which would sometimes result in him dropping items being carried. Petitioner also told Thompson that one of Petitioner's legs was subject to sporadic disfunction that caused him to periodically fall, without warning to himself or to others. He told Thompson that this occurred several times while he was at his place of employment and that his falling had caused humorous incidents. Thompson told Gorman on October 15 or 16, 1984, what Petitioner had said about his physical condition. On October 16, 1984, Gorman sent Petitioner a letter confirming the offer of employment made on October 5, confirming the November 5 effective date, and scheduling Petitioner's orientation for November 5. The offer contained in that letter again stated that it was "subject to satisfactory reference checks and the passing of pre-employment health requirements." On October 17, 1984, Petitioner was interviewed for a promotion that he had applied for at his current employer, Job Service of Florida. On October 18, 1984, Petitioner was given a physical examination by Dr. Amratlal M. Patel, the hospital's employee health physician. Dr. Patel reviewed Petitioner's medical history which caused him concern as to Petitioner's physical condition. He asked Petitioner, who had been lying on a table or stretcher, to walk. When Patel saw that Petitioner, attempting to walk without his cane, was only able to take several steps while holding on to the table and that he was wobbling, Dr. Patel told him to lie back down and asked him how he was able to walk. Petitioner replied that he could walk with a cane. Patel asked who had been treating him, and Petitioner advised that he had been receiving treatment at the Veterans Administration clinic and that his treating neurologist was a Dr. Wilson. Patel told Petitioner that he needed additional information before he could make a decision regarding Petitioner's employability. Patel ordered a lumbar spine x-ray taken of Petitioner and told Petitioner that he needed Petitioner's medical records from the Veterans Administration and a report or the medical records from Dr. Wilson, Petitioner's treating physician, in order to determine Petitioner's current medical condition and prognosis. Dr. Patel did not examine Petitioner in more depth than he would any other applicant for employment since he believed that the answers to Petitioner's condition would best come from a specialist who had been treating Petitioner, and Dr. Patel is not a neurologist. Dr. Patel did not request that Petitioner walk with his cane in order to observe Petitioner walk but merely took Petitioner's word for it that he would walk with a cane. Although Patel will sometime contact an applicant's doctors if he has questions and if he knows them, Patel did not contact Petitioner's doctors whom he did not know. He instead requested copies of the records and advised Gorman that he was requiring Petitioner to bring him copies of Petitioner's records from the Veterans Administration and from Dr. Wilson before he would make any determination of Petitioner's ability to perform the job requirements. Dr. Patel knew that the Personnel Specialist position required a good deal of "running around." After his physical examination, Petitioner called Dr. Wilson to request copies of his medical records, but Dr. Wilson was not in his office at the time that Petitioner called. Petitioner did not ask anyone else in Dr. Wilson's office to provide him with copies of his medical records and did not again attempt to contact Dr. Wilson to obtain a copy of those records. He did, however, go to the Veterans Administration Ambulatory Care Center where he picked up a copy of his most recent medical records. He then drove back to St. Mary's and gave the Veterans Administration's records to Gorman. Gorman reminded Petitioner that he must also supply a copy of Dr. Wilson's records, and Petitioner told Gorman that he needed to hear from Gorman by the following day as to what Dr. Patel had determined based upon Patel's review of the Veterans Administration's records. The Veterans Administration records revealed that during Petitioner's visits to the doctor there in June, July, and August, 1984, Petitioner was deteriorating more, that he had difficulty in getting out of chairs unassisted, with eating, with holding things in his hands, with letting go of things that he was holding, and with getting up off of the floor. On October 19, 1984, Dr. Patel reviewed the Veterans Administration's notes and concluded from that information that Petitioner's condition was more serious than Patel had thought, that there was very severe permanent central nervous system involvement, that Petitioner would not be able to physically move about the hospital as the personnel specialist job required, but that Dr. Patel still wanted the information from Dr. Wilson without which he felt he could not make a medical decision regarding Petitioner's employability. Dr. Patel informed Gorman of his conclusion after his review of the Veterans Administration's notes, telling Gorman that Petitioner had a lot of problems with his muscles and central nervous system, and that Dr. Patel could not make a decision based only on the medical information thus far provided by Petitioner. Because October 19 was the last day upon which two weeks' notice could have been given by Petitioner before his starting time at St. Mary's of November 5, 1984, and because of Petitioner's insistence that he be notified on October 19 of Dr. Patel's conclusion upon review of the Veterans Administration's records, Gorman contacted Petitioner on October 19. Gorman told Petitioner that Dr. Patel could not make a good medical decision based on the information contained in the Veterans Administration's records provided by Petitioner. Gorman told Petitioner that Dr. Patel did not know Petitioner's complete current medical condition and prognosis for the future without Dr. Wilson's records and that in view of the activities of the job Dr. Patel could not recommend Petitioner at that time. During that same telephone conversation Petitioner told Gorman that he was "flying a desk" at his present job and could not understand why he could not do the same at St. Mary's. Gorman explained that the position to be filled at St. Mary's was not one of "flying a desk" but required much more physical activity, as indicated in the job description signed and acknowledged by Petitioner. Gorman further told Petitioner that since he could not offer Petitioner the position on October 19 (the deadline set by Petitioner), that the hospital would continue to look for qualified candidates to fill the position. Gorman sent Petitioner a letter on that date confirming the substance of the telephone conversation between them. No time limit was imposed by anyone from St. Mary's hospital as to when the medical documentation requested of Petitioner was to be provided. Petitioner never did provide St. Mary's with any documentation from Dr. Wilson although he knew that it had been requested as a condition precedent to his approved employment. Petitioner did not request that Gorman extend the October 19th deadline established by Petitioner for his two-weeks' notice in order that he could bring Dr. Wilson's records to Dr. Patel for his review. Gorman's decision to look for other applicants due to Petitioner's failure to provide documentation from Dr. Wilson was influenced by Gorman's concern for Petitioner's safety and well-being, if employed at St. Mary's Hospital, and the safety and well-being of co-workers and patients of the hospital. The position for which Petitioner applied, the one being vacated by Jo Ellen Dyer, involved walking throughout the hospital a minimum of 70 percent of the work time. The hallways in the hospital are frequented by visitors, staff, and patients, and patients ambulate in the hallways with IVs attached. Further, persons on stretchers and in wheelchairs are frequently encountered in the hallways. Petitioner received the promotion he was applying for at his then place of employment in November of 1984. In November of 1984 St. Mary's Hospital's president issued instructions that new hirings of employees would be limited, and vacant positions should be filled prudently. The Personnel Specialist position for which Petitioner applied has never been filled and was eliminated, for practical purposes, in December of 1984. Although other persons have since been hired as Personnel Specialist at St. Mary's or have transferred from other departments into Personnel Specialist positions at St. Mary's, none of those persons have been hired for or transferred to the personnel Specialist position previously held by Jo Ellen Dyer, the one for which Petitioner had applied. The duties formerly performed by Jo Ellen Dyer were absorbed by Drew Thompson. St. Mary's Hospital does employ handicapped employees when the handicap does not interfere with the performance of their duties and a reasonable accommodation can be made for those individuals. St. Mary's Hospital's failure to hire Petitioner was due to Petitioner's failure to qualify for that employment by providing required medical information by the deadline that Petitioner had imposed in order that Petitioner could show that he was able to fulfill the job duties. A person using a cane could fulfill the job description so long as that was the only problem. At the time that St. Mary's was required by Petitioner to make its final decision on October 19, the information it had regarding Petitioner's current medical condition was the information that Petitioner had given to Drew Thompson about falling unexpectedly and dropping things unexpectedly and the information contained in the Veterans Administration's medical records Petitioner he had given to the physician at the Veterans Administration for purposes of obtaining medical treatment. Those who encountered him at St. Mary's Hospital, however, observed Petitioner having no difficulty walking with his cane. The partial medical information provided by Petitioner was inconclusive. Petitioner is not a handicapped person and does not consider himself to be one. Petitioner testified at the final hearing that he walks with no difficulty, that when he interviewed at St. Mary's Hospital he parked his car two and one-half blocks away and walked to the interview (rather than parking in a handicapped space), that he has never been physically unable to perform any of his job duties, that he suffers no limitations whatsoever on his ability to walk, to carry, to lift, to push, and that he is not precluded from doing anything. He testified that he writes with no difficulty and operates a computer daily despite the numbness in his hands. He lifts and moves furniture in his family's thrift store when he is there; he pushes his wife in a wheelchair; and he is a wood carver who uses knives, which requires fine finger manipulation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of an unlawful employment practice regarding its failure to hire Petitioner and dismissing with prejudice the Petition for Relief filed in this cause. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5116 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 3, 4, 7-15, 18-22, 27, and 33 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 34, and 40 have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 6 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 35-39 have been rejected as being irrelevant Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 5, 16, 17, 23-26, and 28-32 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitations of the testimony. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-32 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 33 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Lynn E. Szymoniak, Esquire 1030 Lake Avenue Lake Worth, Florida 33460 Leo P. Rock, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 3068 Orlando, Florida 32802 Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Sherry B. Rice, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings: During times material hereto, and particularly from January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1985, Respondent, Eusebio Subias, M.D., was a licensed medical doctor in Florida, board certified in Psychiatry and an eligible Medicaid provider of psychiatric services pursuant to the Medicaid contract he is party to with DHRS dated October, 1982. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Medicaid regulations and guidelines require physicians to meet board certification in psychiatry before they may provide reimbursable psychiatric services to Medicaid eligible recipients. As part of his agreement to participate in the Medicaid Program, Respondent agreed to keep such records as are necessary to fully disclose the extent of services provided to individuals receiving assistance in the state plan. Respondent also agreed to abide by the provisions of pertinent Florida administrative rules, statutes, policies, procedures and directives in the manual of the Florida Medicaid Program. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). During 1986, the Surveillance & Utilization Review System unit of the Medicaid Office indicated that the amount of Respondent's medicaid billing greatly exceeded that of his peers. Based on that indication, the Office of Program Integrity asked Respondent to provide them with copies of certain medical records for the year 1982. Respondent provided the Department with those records as requested. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3). Those records were forwarded to the peer review committee for evaluation. The records were reviewed by both the local and state peer review committees. The 1982 records contained inadequate information for the peer review committee to document or otherwise justify the number of office visits per patient. The records did not contain reasons for treatment, reasons for frequency of visits or what specific services were rendered to patients. (Petitioner's Exhibits 16 and 17, Pages 3 and 4 and Composite Exhibit 3). On April 21, 1986, Petitioner notified Respondent that it determined that he overbilled Medicaid in the amount of $17,820.09 for the calendar year 1982. Respondent was then notified that a similar review would be conducted for the period January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1985. That review and the results thereof are the subject of this proceeding. The Department subsequently requested, and Respondent provided medical records for 85 specific recipients which were selected by means of the "Disproportionate Stratified Random Sampling" (DSRS). (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). Respondent's 1983-85 records contain substantially more details than the records he provided Petitioner during the 1982 review period. Petitioner had its medical consultant, Dr. Forsthoefel, review the 1983-85 records. He was a member of the peer committee which made the peer review determination in 1982 which was used as a guide for the degree of overutilization. Forsthoefel denied those office visits that he determined were not supported by documentation in the medical records and concluded that the visits were not medically necessary. As a result, Petitioner sent Respondent a letter advising that he had overbilled medicaid in the amount of $79,093.05 for the years 1983-1985. (Petitioner's Exhibits 9 and 13). By letter dated September 5, 1986, Respondent requested a meeting to discuss the Department's proposed action and such a meeting was granted on October 31, 1986 at 1:30 p.m. Dr. Forsthoefel, Dr. Conn, Petitioner's Chief Medical Consultant in 1982, Millie Martin, and Respondent attended the October 31 meeting. During the meeting, Respondent attempted to individually review each of the approximately 3200 medical records for patients he treated during the years 1983-85 such that he could explain and document the medical necessity of each of the patient's office visits. He also requested that Petitioner have the records reviewed by a psychiatrist. Neither Dr. Conn nor Dr. Forsthoefel are psychiatrists. Dr. Conn left soon after the meeting began. Dr. Forsthoefel, unable and unwilling to comply with Respondent's request that each medical record be individually reviewed, concluded that continuing the meeting would not be productive and left after approximately 2 hours. The Department again denied those visits which it had early concluded were not medically necessary based on the review by its medical consultants. By letter dated November 10, 1986, Petitioner again advised Respondent that the Department would seek a $79,093.05 overpayment for the years 1983-85 and advised him of his rights to a formal hearing. Drs. Mutter and Tumarkin were commissioned by Petitioner to review the medical records under scrutiny with each doctor reviewing one half of the records. Based on their review, Respondent was denied reimbursement for even more office visits based on their opinion that the records did not contain sufficient documentation or notations that would indicate continued office visits were medically necessary. (Petitioner's Exhibits 17a and 18). Dr. Tumarkin made his comments on Respondent's medical records in green ink. Those records which did not contain green marking were records numbered 3 and 27 resulting in the Department's overstating the overpayment claim by $125.01. Respondent introduced information regarding Medicaid's denial of claims which should have been billed to Medicare. During the period from May 1985 through December 31, 1985, certain denials fall within the 1983-85 review period and since the Department never paid such claims, the Department agreed at hearing to reduce its overpayment amount by $6,421.44. Also at hearing, Petitioner determined that it made an error in its computation of the figures stated in the November 10, 1986 letter and was now seeking $78,661.93 minus $6,421.44 for the amount claimed to be overbilled by Respondent as $72,240.49. Respondent, who is of hispanic origin, treats a substantial number of Spanish speaking patients. Respondent graduated from medical school in Cuba at the age of 22 and participated in a rotating internship at Mercy Hospital in Hampton, Ohio. He came to Florida in 1963 and was licensed in 1964. In April, 1963, Respondent was employed at Hollywood Memorial Hospital. Respondent was the third Spanish speaking doctor to practice in South Florida and was the first to be promoted to a chairmanship at Hollywood Memorial Hospital. Respondent was the first clinical director at Coral Reef's Hospital. He is a member of several medical societies and was involved in the development of several psychotic drugs, including Elavil. Respondent is board certified in psychiatry. Respondent has staff privileges at Hollywood Memorial Hospital and three other area hospital. He has practiced psychiatry for more than 25 years in the United State and is accomplished in the treatment of severe psychotic patients. Respondent was tendered and received as an expert in psychiatry. Southeastern Florida was inundated during the early 1980's with mentally ill refugees during the Mariel Boat Lift. That area has a uniquely high need for psychiatric services due to its characteristic as a metropolitan area with a large homeless population. The Marlowe Study which was commissioned by Petitioner to review the need for psychiatric services in Dade County during the period which coincided with the Respondent's 1983-1985 office practice here under review, concluded that insufficient resources were earmarked for the treatment of mentally ill residents of Dade County, Florida. Respondent prefers to treat severely psychotic patients on an outpatient basis. He has been very successful in utilizing this method of treatment and it has resulted in substantial public benefit in the form of substantial financial savings that would have otherwise been required to hospitalize such patients for treatment. Respondent is paid $35.01 for a 45 minute session for each Medicaid patient whereas the average cost for inpatient treatment at an area hospital is approximately $400.00 per day. Respondent modified his record keeping practice in 1982 so that his medical records for 1983-85 contained the minimum requirements for medical records necessary to support Medicaid billings as specified in Rule 10C- 7.030(1)(m) and 10C-7.062(1(n) Florida Administrative Code. All of the medical experts testified that Respondent's records for the period at issue here met the minimum requirements specified in the required regulations and DHRS's procedure manuals. Those requirements are: dates of services; patients name and date of birth; name and title of person performing the service, when it is someone other than the billing practitioner; chief complaint on each visit; pertinent medical history; pertinent findings on examinations; medications administered or prescribed; description of treatment when applicable; recommendations for additional treatments or consultations; and tests and results. Petitioner presented testimony through Ms. Martin to the effect that Respondent had admitted during his October 1986 meeting with the medicaid consultants that he had, from memory, gone back and recreated his medical records for 1983-85. Respondent denied this at hearing and credibly testified that based on the deficiencies found in the latter part of 1982 concerning his medical records, he commenced to prepare a complete medical record for each patient visit. Respondent's testimony in this regard is credited and none of the medical professionals, save Ms. Martin, presented any evidence which would call into question the accuracy of Respondent's records during the period 1983- Ms. Martin's testimony to the contrary is rejected. Dr. Forsthoefel candidly admitted that he is not qualified to render an opinion with respect to medical necessity and appropriateness of specialized psychiatric services. Respondent is the first psychiatrist reviewed by the Medicaid officials of Petitioner for over-utilization as Petitioner's officials were unaware of any other psychiatrist who had been reviewed prior to Respondent. The peer review process for determination of over-utilization and mis- utilization of Medicaid services is designed so that the physician being reviewed may discuss individual patient records and cases with the Committee, as well as the Medicaid consultants who later apply peer review findings, and such discussion will be considered in arriving at a final determination. (Peer Review SOP, April, 1987, Respondent's Exhibit 12). An integral part of peer review for the physician being reviewed is to be able to discuss individual cases with the reviewer prior to a final determination being made concerning medical necessity and appropriateness. Such interplay and explanations regarding certain aspects of a case can lead to a more detailed determination concerning an overpayment issue. Respondent's October 1986 review should have been a complete new review of individual records affording him an opportunity to discuss specific cases with the physician consultants, provide him an opportunity to substantiate certain treatments based upon his recollection and justify the treatment modality he utilized for the 85 patients which comprised the random sampling. 2/ Respondent was not permitted to meaningfully discuss those individual cases even though he requested an opportunity to do so. This is so despite Petitioner's consultant's admission that such a consultation would have aided them and perhaps changed their opinion with respect to medical necessity and appropriateness of specific treatments rendered by Respondent. (Testimony of Conn, Forsthoefel, Tumarkin and Whiddon). While some experts would treat severely psychotic patients on a less frequent basis than Respondent and hospitalize them sooner, Respondent's method of treatment is well accepted among qualified board certified psychiatrists. Dr. Tumarkin's different treatment philosophy wherein he favored inpatient treatment for severely psychotic patients while Respondent showed a preference for outpatient treatment, is in no way indicative of inappropriateness by Respondent's method of treatment since his method was proven to be successful. Additionally, one expert, Dr. Tumarkin would have allowed more visits as being medically necessary and appropriate had he been advised by Petitioner's representatives that he should apply the community standard for medical necessity and appropriateness of psychiatric services. A Medicaid provider of psychiatric services is required to provide services equivalent to that of their peers. Had Dr. Tumarkin consulted with Respondent, his opinion concerning medical necessity and appropriateness would have been affected and he would have requested such had he known that he was allowed to. This is especially so based on the fact that his treatment preference is more hospital oriented. It is thus concluded that Respondent was not given a fair opportunity to present circumstances relevant to the overpayment amount in question here, despite his request to do so. (Petitioner's Exhibit 14). A review of a Peer Comparison Analysis with Respondent's practice respecting the number of office procedures per patient performed by him in contrast to other medicaid psychiatrists, indicates that Respondent saw his patients, on average, less than the average for other psychiatrists in Dade, Monroe and Broward Counties between the years 1983-85. (Petitioner's Exhibit 22). Dr. Stillman is board certified in psychiatry and has been practicing for more than 30 years. He reviewed, as Respondent's expert witness, all of the 85 patient charts in question. Dr. Mutter rendered a specific report about the even numbered charts that he reviewed. His reports indicates, with respect to many charts, that he was unable to find specific documentation supporting the reasons and medical necessity for treatment. This testimony was sharply contradicted by that of both Dr. Stillman and Respondent who easily located specific record documentation which indicated the medical necessity and reasons for services provided to patients by Respondent. Examples of over-utilization from Dr. Mutter's report were inquired about and on each occasion, Respondent and Dr. Stillman were able to identify documents not referred to by Dr. Mutter that substantiated the medical need and reasons for treatment. Drs. Subias and Stillman's testimony was not contradicted by Petitioner. Without going through each patient's records, a review of the findings concerning several patients is illustrative and will be herein discussed. Patient number 85, S. T., Jr. 3/ was a schizophrenic, suffering from epilepsy with borderline intellectual functioning. He was a very psychotic patient who was, during his early years, treated in an institution. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 5). He was obese, apprehensive, disoriented, suffered from impaired insight and judgment, a depressed mood, flat affect and a constant feeling of rejection. Respondent commenced treating patient number 85 twice weekly as an outpatient and as his condition improved, he was seen once a week and office visits were reduced further as his condition continued to improve. Without this intense continuity of treatment, patient number 85 would have decompensated and would have required an extensive institutionalization. Respondent provided substantial documentation as to the need for each of S. T.'s visits. Patient number 83, C. C., was a schizophrenic who suffered from depression, was delusional with a flat affect, poor reality contact and went through extended periods of depression on a monthly basis. Respondent prescribed benadryl to counteract patient C. C.'s delusional symptoms and otherwise justified his method of treatments, frequency and reason for each visit. Respondent substantiated that it was medically necessary to treat patient C. C. on each occasion where treatment was provided. Respondent's medical records provided the documentation for treatment in each instance. Patient number 81, F. D., was a schizophrenic who suffered severe mental depression. His condition had deteriorated to the point whereby family therapy sessions had to be scheduled by Respondent. Respondent was able to keep F. D. out of the hospital, he remained with his family and his condition improved to the point where the frequency of visits were reduced. Respondent's records justified the medical necessity and reasons for the treatment he provided patient F. D. Respondent testified as to his method of treatment as to patients 88, 78, 77, 52, 56, 48, 46, 38, 40, 60, 68 and as to each of those patients, Respondent's records document that the patients treatment and visits were medically necessary and appropriate. Dr. Stillman demonstrated that on each occasion, there was substantial record documentation which supported the necessity for the treatment as provided by Respondent. Based upon the inconsistent evidence presented by Petitioner respecting its claim that Respondent failed to document the medical necessity for the treatment he provided to the patients during the years 1983-85 and the direct evidence presented by Respondent which established that all of the services rendered by him to Medicaid recipients were medically necessary and appropriate under the circumstances, it is concluded that Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the treatments here in dispute were unnecessary, inappropriate or were not otherwise documented by the medical records under review. Moreover, all of the experts agree that the treating psychiatrist is best able to determine the medical necessity and appropriateness of specific treatments to render to a patient as that psychiatrist has direct contact with, and is best able to fully apply his or her training and experience. Respondent amply demonstrated that the services here at issue were medically necessary, appropriate and was of clear benefit to the patient. Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of establishing any basis for an overpayment as claimed. 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of- Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order finding that there was no overpayment to Respondent during the years 1983- 85. Respondent is entitled to a refund of all monies held pursuant to the overpayment calculation by the Department in this cause together with 10% for annual interest pursuant to Rule 10C-7.060(12), Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 1988.
