Findings Of Fact Introduction Petitioner, New Riviera Health Resort, Inc. (New Riviera or petitioner), operates a fifty-two bed nursing home at 6901 Yumuri Street, Coral Gables, Florida. The facility is licensed by respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). At all times relevant hereto, New Riviera was a participant in the Florida Medicaid Program. Respondent is designated as the state agency responsible for the administration of Medicaid funds under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. In this regard, HRS requires providers such as New Riviera to follow cost reimbursement principles adopted by the federal government. These principles, rules and regulations are codified in publications known as HIM-15 and the Cost Provider Reimbursement Manual. Pursuant to Rule 10C-7.48(4)(a)5.a., Florida Administrative Code, petitioner filed a cost report for its fiscal year ending November 30, 1983, reflecting what it perceived to be its reimburseable costs for providing Medicaid services during the fiscal year. The cost report was audited by HRS field auditors in 1984. Thereafter, on March 20, 1985, HRS issued a Schedule of Audit Adjustments, Statement of Costs, and Statement of Cost and Statistics. As is pertinent here, the Schedule of Audit Adjustments recommended that reimburseable costs be reduced by $71,561.00 in order to bring the cost report in conformity with Federal and State Medicaid reimbursement principles.1 These adjustments relate to the owner's salary and fringe benefits ($50,246), certain roof repairs ($11,613.00), a pension plan contribution ($6,000), and the write-off of certain assets ($3,772). Prior to the preparation of the above reports, an exit conference was held by HRS representatives and petitioner to discuss the proposed adjustments. When no resolution was reached, the reports were issued. That precipitated the instant proceeding. Owner's Salary & Benefits ($50,246.00) Petitioner's facility is owned by Shirley El. St. Clair. Using an HRS formula, New Riviera allocated $30,934.00 of her total salary during the fiscal year to the cost report for reimbursement. It also sought to be reimbursed for $2,312.00 in related payroll taxes, and $17,000.00 for pension plan contributions. All were disallowed by HRS on the ground the costs were "unnecessary" under applicable federal regulations. Specifically, Section 902.2 of HIM-15 provides in part that compensation paid to an owner may be included in allowable provider cost "only to the extent that it represents reasonable renumeration for managerial, administrative, professional, and other services related to the operation of the facility and rendered in connection with patient care." The regulation goes on to provide that "services rendered in connection with patient care include both direct and indirect activities in the provision and supervision of patient care." The same section prohibits reimbursement where services rendered are not related to either direct or indirect patient care but are, for example, rendered "for the purpose of managing or improving the owner's financial investment." The agency takes the position that Ms. St. Clair's efforts are focused in the direction of managing and improving her investment, and that her salary and benefits should be accordingly disallowed. It also contends that the facility had three licensed administrators during fiscal year 1983, and that New Riviera does not need that number to adequately operate a 52- bed facility, which is small by industry standards. St. Clair has been owner-president-administrator of the facility since its inception some thirty two years ago. In response to an audit inquiry, St. Clair gave the following description of her duties: . . . in general terms. I am the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation and Trustee of the New Riviera Pension Trust. Though I no longer keep regular business hours in the traditional sense, I generally work a 30-50 hour week depending on circumstances, frequently on weekends. Much of my time is spent managing the financial aspect of New Riviera and the Pension Plan. I do most of the banking and a great deal of the grocery and "odds and ends" shopping for New Riviera. At final hearing she described her working hours in 1983 as being "irregular"; but still totaling 30 to 50 hours per week. Her duties included "a bit of everything," including keeping the books, admitting patients, performing marketing and banking activities, and relieving other personnel on weekends. There is no dispute that St. Clair has a voice in all business decisions of the nursing home. Because there are no secretaries or receptionists employed by the facility, she also performed various secretarial tasks. During the fiscal year in question, St. Clair also had two other licensed and full-time individuals performing administrative duties. One was a Mrs. Campbell whose primary duty was to keep the books while the other was her son, Michael, who acted as assistant administrator. According to St. Clair, Michael has a masters -degree in health care administration, supervised the maintenance of the facility, and was there "just to learn the business" in anticipation of her retirement. He recently left New Riviera in September, 1985 and had not been replaced as of the time of final hearing. Mrs. Campbell still remains on the payroll. HRS has allowed Campbell's and Michael's salary and fringe benefits but has proposed to disallow all salary and fringe benefits of Mrs. St. Clair. In this regard, there is no credible evidence that a 52-bed facility requires three licensed administrators. Indeed, a 52-bed facility is unique in terms of size, and is roughly one-half the size of a typical nursing facility. Mrs. St. Clair did perform numerous administrative duties during the fiscal year in question, and without contradiction, it was established she devoted some 30 to 50 hours per week at the facility. On the other hand, her son was simply "learning the trade," and his sole function was described as "supervising the maintenance." Under these circumstances, it is found that Shirley St. Clair's salary and fringes are related to "services rendered in connection with patient care" and should be reimbursed. Conversely, the son's salary and fringe benefits were not necessary, were duplicative in nature, and should be disallowed. This finding is substantiated by the fact that the son has not been replaced since leaving the facility. Reimburseable expenses should be accordingly adjusted. Roof Repairs ($11,613.00) During the fiscal year, repairs costing $11,613.00 were made to a part of the roof structure due to leaks. The facility's accountant recorded these repairs as an expense on the cost report. This accounting treatment was made, according to the provider, on the theory the repairs did not extend the useful life of the building, and were necessary for continued operation of the facility. Section 108.2 of HIM-15 in controlling and provides in part as follows: Betterments and improvements extend the life or increase the productivity of an asset as opposed to repairs and maintenance which either restore the asset to, or maintain it at, its normal or expected service life. Repair and maintenance costs are always allowed in the current accounting period. The more credible and persuasive evidence of witness Donaldson supports a finding that the roof expenditure was a "betterment and improvement" that extended the life of the roof (asset). In view of this, it is found that the cost of the repair should have been capitalized, rather than expensed, and that reimburseable costs should be reduced by $11,613 as proposed by the agency. Pension Plan Contribution ($6,000.00) Petitioner reflected $51,000.00 on its cost report for contributions to its employee pension plan during the fiscal year. This included separate payments of $10,000.00, $35,000.00 and $6,000.00 made in April and May, 1983 and January, 1984, respectively. This information is contained on Schedule B of the firm's Form 5500-R filed with the Internal Revenue Service on September 7, 1984. During the course of its audit, HRS requested the pension plan consultant to furnish information concerning minimum funding standards and retirement benefits for the participants. This was required to verify the charges on the cost report. In a letter dated July 3, 1984, the consultant advised in pertinent part: Based on salary and financial information provided by New Riviera, a $45,000.00 contribution to the pension plan met the minimum funding standards and was deductible. Relying upon this information, HRS disallowed $6,000.00 of the $51,000.00 in total costs allocated for the plan during the year ended November 30, 1983. On January 19, 1984, New Riviera issued a check in the amount of $26,000.00 payable to Shearson American Express for a pension plan contribution. Of that total, $6,000.00 was a contribution to 1983 costs. According to New Riviera's accountant, the additional $6,000.00 was required by the plan's actuary. However, this was not confirmed by any documentation or testimony from the actuary. When the audit was being conducted by HRS in the summer of 1984, the check written to Shearson American Express was in its business records, but was not produced for the auditors' inspection. Further, it was not produced at the exit conference held at a later date. In this regard, it was petitioner's responsibility to furnish that information during the course of the audit and exit conference rather than assuming that the auditors would discover the document while reviewing the auditee's books and records. This is particularly true since petitioner was placed on notice that the $6,000.00 was in dispute and subject to being disallowed by the agency.2 Even if the check had been disclosed to the auditors, it does not change the character of the $6,000 payment. The check was issued during the fiscal year ending November 30, 1984 and was therefore outside the scope of the audit year in question. If it is an appropriate expenditure, it is reimburseable on the 1984 cost report rather than the cost report for the year ending November 30, 1983. Therefore, 1983 reimburseable costs should be reduced by $6,000, as proposed by the agency. Write-off of Certain Assets ($3,772.00) During fiscal year 1983 petitioner wrote off $3,722.00 in remaining balances related to certain equipment.3 This amount related to the remaining or salvage value of certain assets whose useful lives had expired according to depreciation guidelines, but which assets were still in service. Even though the assets had not been retired or sold, petitioner wrote off the undepreciated balances remaining on the books. The undepreciated balances arose by virtue of petitioner using the declining balance method of depreciation. Under Medicaid guidelines, assets acquired after 1966 must be depreciated by the straight line method. Therefore, petitioner was in error in using a declining balance method. Even so, according to generally accepted accounting procedures, it was incorrect to write-off a remaining balance related to certain assets before the assets were actually sold or retired. At hearing petitioner agreed that its accounting treatment was contrary to HRS requirements, and accordingly these costs ($3,772.00) should be disallowed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's cost report for fiscal year ending November 30, 1983 be adjusted in accordance with paragraphs 4 through 7 of the Conclusions of Law portion of this Recommended Order. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1986.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent applied the proper reimbursement principles to Petitioners' initial Medicaid rate setting, and whether elements of detrimental reliance exist so as to require Respondent to establish a particular initial rate for Petitioners' facilities.
Findings Of Fact There are nine Petitioners in this case. Each of them is a long-term health care facility (nursing home) operated under independent and separate legal entities, but, generally, under the umbrella of a single owner, Tzvi "Steve" Bogomilsky. The issues in this case are essentially the same for all nine Petitioners, but the specific monetary impact on each Petitioner may differ. For purposes of addressing the issues at final hearing, only one of the Petitioners, Madison Pointe Rehabilitation and Health Center (Madison Pointe), was discussed, but the pertinent facts are relevant to each of the other Petitioners as well. Each of the Petitioners has standing in this case. The Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by each Petitioner was timely and satisfied minimum requirements. In September 2008, Bogomilsky caused to be filed with AHCA a Change of Licensed Operator ("CHOP") application for Madison Pointe.1 The purpose of that application was to allow a new entity owned by Bogomilsky to become the authorized licensee of that facility. Part and parcel of the CHOP application was a Form 1332, PFA. The PFA sets forth projected revenues, expenses, costs and charges anticipated for the facility in its first year of operation by the new operator. The PFA also contained projected (or budgeted) balance sheets and a projected Medicaid cost report for the facility. AHCA is the state agency responsible for licensing nursing homes in this state. AHCA also is responsible for managing the federal Medicaid program within this state. Further, AHCA monitors nursing homes within the state for compliance with state and federal regulations, both operating and financial in nature. The AHCA Division of Health Quality Assurance, Bureau of Long-Term Care Services, Long-Term Care Unit ("Long-Term Care Unit") is responsible for reviewing and approving CHOP applications and issuance of an operating license to the new licensee. The AHCA Division of Health Quality Assurance, Bureau of Health Facility Regulation, Financial Analysis Unit ("Financial Analysis Unit") is responsible for reviewing the PFA contained in the CHOP application and determining an applicant's financial ability to operate a facility in accordance with the applicable statutes and rules. Neither the Long-Term Care Unit nor the Financial Analysis Unit is a part of the Florida Medicaid Program. Madison Pointe also chose to submit a Medicaid provider application to the Medicaid program fiscal agent to enroll as a Medicaid provider and to be eligible for Medicaid reimbursement. (Participation by nursing homes in the Medicaid program is voluntary.) The Medicaid provider application was reviewed by the Medicaid Program Analysis Office (MPA) which, pursuant to its normal practices, reviewed the application and set an interim per diem rate for reimbursement. Interim rate-setting is dependent upon legislative direction provided in the General Appropriations Act and also in the Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (the Plan). The Plan is created by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS (formerly known as the Health Care Financing Administration) is a federal agency within the Department of Health and Human Services. CMS is responsible for administering the Medicare and Medicaid programs, utilizing state agencies for assistance when appropriate. In its PFA filed with the Financial Analysis Unit, Madison Pointe proposed an interim Medicaid rate of $203.50 per patient day (ppd) as part of its budgeted revenues. The projected interim rate was based on Madison Pointe's expected occupancy rate, projected expenses, and allowable costs. The projected rate was higher than the previous owner's actual rate in large part based on Madison Pointe's anticipation of pending legislative action concerning Medicaid reimbursement issues. That is, Madison Pointe projected higher spending and allowable costs based on expected increases proposed in the upcoming legislative session. Legislative Changes to the Medicaid Reimbursement System During the 2007 Florida Legislative Session, the Legislature addressed the status of Medicaid reimbursement for long-term care facilities. During that session, the Legislature enacted the 2007 Appropriations Act, Chapter 2007-72, Laws of Florida. The industry proposed, and the Legislature seemed to accept, that it was necessary to rebase nursing homes in the Medicaid program. Rebasing is a method employed by the Agency periodically to calibrate the target rate system and adjust Medicaid rates (pursuant to the amount of funds allowed by the Legislature) to reflect more realistic allowable expenditures by providers. Rebasing had previously occurred in 1992 and 2002. The rebasing would result in a "step-up" in the Medicaid rate for providers. In response to a stated need for rebasing, the 2007 Legislature earmarked funds to address Medicaid reimbursement. The Legislature passed Senate Bill 2800, which included provisions for modifying the Plan as follows: To establish a target rate class ceiling floor equal to 90 percent of the cost- based class ceiling. To establish an individual provider- specific target floor equal to 75 percent of the cost-based class ceiling. To modify the inflation multiplier to equal 2.0 times inflation for the individual provider-specific target. (The inflation multiplier for the target rate class ceiling shall remain at 1.4 times inflation.) To modify the calculation of the change of ownership target to equal the previous provider's operating and indirect patient care cost per diem (excluding incentives), plus 50 percent of the difference between the previous providers' per diem (excluding incentives) and the effect class ceiling and use an inflation multiplier of 2.0 times inflation. The Plan was modified in accordance with this legislation with an effective date of July 1, 2007. Four relevant sentences from the modified Plan are relevant to this proceeding, to wit: For a new provider with no cost history resulting from a change of ownership or operator, where the previous provider participated in the Medicaid program, the interim operating and patient care per diems shall be the lesser of: the class reimbursement ceiling based on Section V of this Plan, the budgeted per diems approved by AHCA based on Section III of this Plan, or the previous providers' operating and patient care cost per diem (excluding incentives), plus 50% of the difference between the previous providers' per diem (excluding incentives) and the class ceiling. The above new provider ceilings, based on the district average per diem or the previous providers' per diem, shall apply to all new providers with a Medicaid certification effective on or after July 1, 1991. The new provider reimbursement limitation above, based on the district average per diem or the previous providers' per diem, which affects providers already in the Medicaid program, shall not apply to these same providers beginning with the rate semester in which the target reimbursement provision in Section V.B.16. of this plan does not apply. This new provider reimbursement limitation shall apply to new providers entering the Medicaid program, even if the new provider enters the program during a rate semester in which Section V.B.16 of this plan does not apply. [The above cited sentences will be referred to herein as Plan Sentence 1, Plan Sentence 2, etc.] Madison Pointe's Projected Medicaid Rate Relying on the proposed legislation, including the proposed rebasing and step-up in rate, Madison Pointe projected an interim Medicaid rate of $203.50 ppd for its initial year of operation. Madison Pointe's new projected rate assumed a rebasing by the Legislature to eliminate existing targets, thereby, allowing more reimbursable costs. Although no legislation had been passed at that time, Madison Pointe's consultants made calculations and projections as to how the rebasing would likely affect Petitioners. Those projections were the basis for the $203.50 ppd interim rate. The projected rate with limitations applied (i.e., if Madison Pointe did not anticipate rebasing or believe the Plan revisions applied) would have been $194.26. The PFA portion of Madison Pointe's CHOP application was submitted to AHCA containing the $203.50 ppd interim rate. The Financial Analysis Unit, as stated, is responsible for, inter alia, reviewing PFAs submitted as part of a CHOP application. In the present case, Ryan Fitch was the person within the Financial Analysis Unit assigned responsibility for reviewing Madison Pointe's PFA. Fitch testified that the purpose of his review was to determine whether the applicant had projected sufficient monetary resources to successfully operate the facility. This would include a contingency fund (equal to one month's anticipated expenses) available to the applicant and reasonable projections of cost and expenses versus anticipated revenues.2 Upon his initial review of the Madison Pointe PFA, Fitch determined that the projected Medicaid interim rate was considerably higher than the previous operator's actual rate. This raised a red flag and prompted Fitch to question the propriety of the proposed rate. In his omissions letter to the applicant, Fitch wrote (as the fourth bullet point of the letter), "The projected Medicaid rate appears to be high relative to the current per diem rate and the rate realized in 2006 cost reports (which includes ancillaries and is net of contractual adjustments). Please explain or revise the projections." In response to the omissions letter, Laura Wilson, a health care accountant working for Madison Pointe, sent Fitch an email on June 27, 2008. The subject line of the email says, "FW: Omissions Letter for 11 CHOW applications."3 Then the email addressed several items from the omissions letter, including a response to the fourth bullet point which says: Item #4 - Effective July 1, 2007, it is anticipated that AHCA will be rebasing Medicaid rates (the money made available through elimination of some of Medicaid's participation in covering Medicare Part A bad debts). Based on discussions with AHCA and the two Associations (FHCA & FAHSA), there is absolute confidence that this rebasing will occur. The rebasing is expected to increase the Medicaid rates at all of the facilities based on the current operator's spending levels. As there is no definitive methodology yet developed, the rebased rates in the projections have been calculated based on the historical methodologies that were used in the 2 most recent rebasings (1992 and 2002). The rates also include the reestablishment of the 50% step-up that is also anticipated to begin again. The rebasing will serve to increase reimbursement and cover costs which were previously limited by ceilings. As noted in Note 6 of the financials, if something occurs which prevents the rebasing, Management will be reducing expenditures to align them with the available reimbursement. It is clear Madison Pointe's projected Medicaid rate was based upon proposed legislative actions which would result in changes to the Plan. It is also clear that should those changes not occur, Madison Pointe was going to be able to address the shortfall by way of reduced expenditures. Each of those facts was relevant to the financial viability of Madison Pointe's proposed operations. Madison Pointe's financial condition was approved by Fitch based upon his review of the PFA and the responses to his questions. Madison Pointe became the new licensed operator of the facility. That is, the Long-Term Care Unit deemed the application to have met all requirements, including financial ability to operate, and issued a license to the applicant. Subsequently, MPA provided to Madison Pointe its interim Medicaid rate. MPA advised Madison Pointe that its rate would be $194.55 ppd, some $8.95 ppd less than Madison Pointe had projected in its PFA (but slightly more than Madison Pointe would have projected with the 50 percent limitation from Plan Sentence 1 in effect, i.e., $194.26). The PFA projected 25,135 annual Medicaid patient days, which multiplied by $8.95, would equate to a reduction in revenues of approximately $225,000 for the first year of operation.4 MPA assigned Madison Pointe's interim Medicaid rate by applying the provisions of the Plan as it existed as of the date Madison Pointe's new operating license was issued, i.e., September 1, 2007. Specifically, MPA limited Madison Pointe's per diem to 50 percent of the difference between the previous provider's per diem and the applicable ceilings, as dictated by the changes to the Plan. (See Plan Sentence 1 set forth above.) Madison Pointe's projected Medicaid rate in the PFA had not taken any such limitations into account because of Madison Pointe's interpretation of the Plan provisions. Specifically, that Plan Sentence 3 applies to Madison Pointe and, therefore, exempts Madison Pointe from the new provider limitation set forth in Plan Sentences 1 and 2. However, Madison Pointe was not "already in the Medicaid program" as of July 1, 2007, as called for in Plan Sentence 3. Rather, Madison Pointe's commencement date in the Medicaid program was September 1, 2007. Plan Sentence 1 is applicable to a "new provider with no cost history resulting from a change of ownership or operator, where the previous operator participated in the Medicaid program." Madison Pointe falls within that definition. Thus, Madison Pointe's interim operating and patient care per diems would be the lesser of: (1) The class reimbursement ceiling based on Section V of the Plan; (2) The budgeted per diems approved by AHCA based on Section III of the Plan; or (3) The previous provider's operating and patient care cost per diem (excluding incentives), plus 50 percent of the difference between the previous provider's per diem and the class ceiling. Based upon the language of Plan Sentence 1, MPA approved an interim operating and patient care per diem of $194.55 for Madison Pointe. Plan Sentence 2 is applicable to Madison Pointe, because it applies to all new providers with a Medicaid certification effective after July 1, 1991. Madison Pointe's certification was effective September 1, 2007. Plan Sentence 3 is the primary point of contention between the parties. AHCA correctly contends that Plan Sentence 3 is not applicable to Petitioner, because it addresses rebasing that occurred on July 1, 2007, i.e., prior to Madison Pointe coming into the Medicaid system. The language of Plan Sentence 3 is clear and unambiguous that it applies to "providers already in the Medicaid program." Plan Sentence 4 is applicable to Madison Pointe, which entered the system during a rate semester, in which no other provider had a new provider limitation because of the rebasing. Again, the language is unambiguous that "[t]his new provider reimbursement limitation shall apply to new providers entering the Medicaid program. . . ." Madison Pointe is a new provider entering the program. Detrimental Reliance and Estoppel Madison Pointe submitted its CHOP application to the Long-Term Care Unit of AHCA for approval. That office has the clear responsibility for reviewing and approving (or denying) CHOP applications for nursing homes. The Long-Term Care Unit requires, as part of the CHOP application, submission of the PFA which sets forth certain financial information used to determine whether the applicant has the financial resources to operate the nursing home for which it is applying. The Long-Term Care Unit has another office within AHCA, the Financial Analysis Unit, to review the PFA. The Financial Analysis Unit is found within the Bureau of Health Facility Regulation. That Bureau is responsible for certificates of need and other issues, but has no authority concerning the issuance, or not, of a nursing home license. Nor does the Financial Analysis Unit have any authority to set an interim Medicaid rate. Rather, the Financial Analysis Unit employs certain individuals who have the skills and training necessary to review financial documents and determine an applicant's financial ability to operate. A nursing home licensee must obtain Medicaid certification if it wishes to participate in the program. Madison Pointe applied for Medicaid certification, filing its application with a Medicaid intermediary which works for CMS. The issuance of a Medicaid certification is separate and distinct from the issuance of a license to operate. When Madison Pointe submitted its PFA for review, it was aware that an office other than the Long-Term Care Unit would be reviewing the PFA. Madison Pointe believed the two offices within AHCA would communicate with one another, however. But even if the offices communicated with one another, there is no evidence that the Financial Analysis Unit has authority to approve or disapprove a CHOP application. That unit's sole purpose is to review the PFA and make a finding regarding financial ability to operate. Likewise, MPA--which determines the interim Medicaid rate for a newly licensed operator--operates independently of the Long-Term Care Unit or the Financial Analysis Unit. While contained within the umbrella of AHCA, each office has separate and distinct duties and responsibilities. There is no competent evidence that an applicant for a nursing home license can rely upon its budgeted interim rate--as proposed by the applicant and approved as reasonable by MPA--as the ultimate interim rate set by the Medicaid Program Analysis Office. At no point in time did Fitch tell Madison Pointe that a rate of $203.50 ppd would be assigned. Rather, he said that the rate seemed high; Madison Pointe responded that it could "eliminate expenditures to align them with the available reimbursement." The interim rate proposed by the applicant is an estimate made upon its own determination of possible facts and anticipated operating experience. The interim rate assigned by MPA is calculated based on the applicant's projections as affected by provisions in the Plan. Furthermore, it is clear that Madison Pointe was on notice that its proposed interim rate seemed excessive. In response to that notice, Madison Pointe did not reduce the projected rate, but agreed that spending would be curtailed if a lower interim rate was assigned. There was, in short, no reliance by Madison Pointe on Fitch's approval of the PFA as a de facto approval of the proposed interim rate. MPA never made a representation to Madison Pointe as to the interim rate it would receive until after the license was approved. There was, therefore, no subsequent representation made to Madison Pointe that was contrary to a previous statement. The Financial Analysis Unit's approval of the PFA was done with a clear and unequivocal concern about the propriety of the rate as stated. The approval was finalized only after a representation by Madison Pointe that it would reduce expenditures if a lower rate was imposed. Thus, Madison Pointe did not change its position based on any representation made by AHCA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, approving the Medicaid interim per diem rates established by AHCA and dismissing each of the Amended Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 23rd day of February, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should grant or deny a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute filed by a health care provider or its assignee. The dispute concerns the proper reimbursement amount for 60 units of meloxicam 15 mg.
Findings Of Fact J. G. is 30 years old and suffered a compensable injury on September 14, 2009. On December 14, 2011, J. G. visited the Advanced Pain Management office of Dr. Daitch, who dispensed to the employee 60 units of meloxicam 15 mg. Meloxicam is a prescription pain medication. Dr. Daitch obtains certain prescription drugs from Unit Dose Services for dispensing in his office. Although Dr. Daitch sees patients who are not covered by Workers' Compensation, he dispenses prescription drugs in his office only to patients covered by Workers' Compensation and has been doing so for four years. Dr. Daitch testified that he was unaware of the pricing of the prescription drugs that he dispenses in his office, and he was unaware of any contract that, in this case, might require him or his assignee, as described in the next paragraph, to discount this reimbursement claim. But he testified that the dispensing of prescription drugs through retail chains such as Walgreens and CVS is "very profitable." (Tr. of deposition of Dr. Daitch 16). All of this testimony is credited. However, it is not unusual for providers to be unaware of in-network or preferred-provider contracts when that they dispense prescription drugs to injured employees. As a certified health care provider, Dr. Daitch was presumptively aware that, whenever he dispenses prescription drugs, his reimbursement may be limited to what is authorized for an in- network or preferred provider.3/ As he did in this case, Dr. Daitch routinely assigns his claims for reimbursement for dispensed prescription drugs. Dr. Daitch testified that he or his practice has a contract with Automated Healthcare Solutions, but the assignee in this case is Prescription Partners--either as a result of a reassignment or Dr. Daitch's misunderstanding of the identity of the billing contractor. For the December 14 office visit, Dr. Daitch completed a CMS-1500, which includes a National Drug Code (NDC) for the meloxicam that he dispensed, a note that he dispensed 60 units of the drug, a reimbursement claim of $437.48 for the drug, and a reimbursement claim of $4.18 as a dispensing fee. Appearing in the upper right-hand corner of the CMS-1500 is the name, "AmTrust of North America," suggesting that Dr. Daitch or Prescription Partners believed that AmTrust North America, Inc., or AmTrust North America of Florida, Inc., was the carrier or claims administrator. The CMS-1500 states that Prescription Partners is the "billing provider" and that Prescription Partners submitted the CMS-1500 to AmTrust North America. The carrier is Petitioner. AmTrust North America, Inc., is a multistate insurance agency, although it is not licensed in Florida. Formerly known as Associated Industries Insurance Service, Inc., AmTrust North America of Florida, Inc., is an insurance agency licensed in Florida and serves as a third-party administrator of claims on policies issued by Petitioner and other carriers, including the claim involved in this case. Each of these corporations is owned by AmTrust Financial Services, Inc., although AmTrust North America of Florida, Inc., was principally owned, as of July 1, 2009, by AmTrust North America, Inc. By EOBR received on January 11, 2012, Petitioner notified Prescription Partners that Petitioner was disallowing the dispensing fee and adjusting the reimbursement amount for the 60 units of meloxicam to $385.48. The explanation for both actions is: "Paid; no modification to the information provided on the medical bill; payment made pursuant to written contractual arrangement (network or PPO named required): ."4/ There is no network or PPO identified in the space after the final colon. The EOBR advises that reconsiderations or appeals must be submitted to Petitioner and Fair Pay SOLUTIONS, if Prescription Partners had any questions about the "analysis." Prescription Partners had questions about the analysis, but addressed them to OMS by filing the Petition. The Petition, which was timely filed, shows that the petitioner is Dr. Daitch, but that the Petition is presented by Prescription Partners, as an entity acting on behalf of the health care provider. The Petition shows copies were mailed to "AmTrust" and Petitioner. The Petition states the gist of the dispute as follows: "Carrier is paying under the AWP not according to the FL fee schedule. This claim is being processed incorrectly." The Petition states that the amount in dispute is $56.18. Attached to the Petition are four documents: the above-described CMS-1500 and EOBR, a Calculation Sheet that renders the above-described details on the amounts in dispute, and a document identified as "Detailed Product Information" from the "Red Book." The "RedBook" is the Drug Topics Red Book™, which is a price index published by Medical Economics Company, Inc. The Red Book™ provides an AWP, by NDC, for all prescription drugs, including repackaged drugs. The "Detailed Product Information," which is from an online version of the Red Book™, identifies the same UDC referenced in the above-described CMS-1500 and indicates that the drug is a repackaged generic. The "Detailed Product Information" also contains "current pricing information" for meloxicam 15 mg. The "current pricing information" shows that the AWP is $218.74 and "HCFA"-- evidently referring to Medicare reimbursement through the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA)--is $6.28. These prices appear to apply to 30 units. The AWP is a price that is designated by the manufacturer or repackager and reported to the Red Book™ publisher. Contrary to its name, the AWP does not necessarily correspond to the mean price of all of the arm's length, wholesale transactions in the drug over a period of time; the AWP more closely resembles the "undiscounted sticker price" assigned to a drug by its manufacturer or repackager.5/ Unlike AWP, repackaging is self-explanatory. A repackager purchases a drug from its manufacturer in bulk--say, 1000 units--and repackages the drug in small quantities--say, 30 units--for dispensing by physicians and other appropriate health care providers. The repackager provides a package and label and obtains a unique UDC for the repackaged drug. By obtaining a unique UDC for the repackaged drug, the repackager is able to set a different AWP from the AWP assigned the drug by its manufacturer. In general, the AWPs assigned by repackagers are 80%-200% higher than the AWPs assigned by manufacturers. As between manufacturers and repackagers of meloxicam at the time in question, the AWP for 60 units ranged from about $290 for manufacturers to about $450 for repackagers. At the time in question, meloxicam was a generic. Now a MAC drug, which means it carries a "maximum allowable cost" because it is now manufactured by several manufacturers, meloxicam presently supports an AWP of $60.91 for 60 units. Petitioner timely filed a carrier response to the Petition. The response states that the carrier has contracted with Carlisle for the reimbursement of prescription drugs at reduced prices. The response states that neither Prescription Partners nor Dr. Daitch is a party to the contract, and they must accept the reduced reimbursement rate. The response includes a copy of a written contract between Carlisle and AmTrust North America (Written Contract); a letter dated January 12, 2012, from the president of Carlisle to the Claims Manager of AmTrust North America of Florida, Inc.; an invoice showing the reduced reimbursements for the subject transaction; and Informational Bulletin DFS-02-2009 dated August 12, 2009. Signed by both parties on August 2, 2012, and, from all appearances, taking effect on that date, the Written Contract is only 22 lines long, exclusive of headings. Its provisions are as follows: AmTrust North America will "exclusively" use Carlisle's "PBM" services. Carlisle will provide PBM services for AmTrust North America throughout the United States. Carlisle's PBM program includes over 64,000 pharmacies, including all of the major retail chains--Walgreens, CVS, Target, and Rite-Aid. If there are no contracted pharmacies that are "reasonably accessible" to an employee, the employee may use an out-of-network pharmacy. Carlisle will submit all pharmacy invoices on a form acceptable to AmTrust North America. The "terms" are "net-30, or as mandated by the appropriate state law." Carlisle will maintain pharmacy records for three years from the last activity. "Insurance. See attachment." (The versions of the contract submitted into evidence have no attachments.) g. The agreement is for one year, after which the agreement automatically renews unless either party provides written notice of termination at least 90 days prior to the renewal date. Carlisle is not an affiliate of AmTrust North America, Inc. Carlisle has a contract with an entity that has contracts with large chains of retail pharmacies. This networking-forming entity obtains discounts from AWPs for various classes of prescription drugs: brand name drugs, generic drugs, and MAC drugs. Pursuant to these contractual arrangements, Carlisle obtains for AmTrust North America, Inc., and its affiliates discounts of 12% off AWP for generic drugs. Eric Lloyd, OMS Program Administrator, testified that this is a relatively low percentage among in-network or preferred providers; this testimony is credited. The January 12, 2012, letter from Carlisle to AmTrust North America of Florida states that AmTrust North America of Florida has the right, under the Written Contract, to reimburse an out-of-network or nonpreferred provider at the same rate that applies to an in-network or preferred provider. The letter states that the pricing worksheet that Carlisle supplies to AmTrust North America of Florida, Inc., shows the reimbursement amount for prescription drugs obtained through in-network or preferred-provider pharmacies. Carlisle uses Medi-Span, which provides AWPs by NDCs like the Red Book™, as the source of the AWP for every prescription drug, to which Carlisle then applies the appropriate discount, depending on whether the drug is a brand name, generic, or MAC drug. Respondent's Information Bulletin DVS-02-2009, which was issued on August 12, 2009, is irrelevant to this case.6/ OMS resolved this reimbursement dispute in favor of Prescription Partners. In its Reimbursement Dispute Determination, OMS cites two grounds for this proposed agency action: 1) the Written Contract is between Carlisle and AmTrust North America, not Petitioner, and 2) the Written Contract provides no drug pricing methodology by which OMS could validate the accuracy of the discount that Petitioner applied to the AWP. The Reimbursement Dispute Determination mentions the Florida Workers' Compensation Health Care Provider Reimbursement Manual, 2008 edition (Provider Manual), which is incorporated by reference at Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.020. Provider Manual II.F.1.b.(1) requires carriers to reimburse certified Florida health care providers pursuant to the reimbursement guidelines contained in the manual: the reimbursement shall be the "agreed upon contract price (whether agreed upon prior to rendering service(s) or upon submission of bill) or the maximum reimbursement allowance (MRA) in the appropriate schedule pursuant to section 440.13(12)(a), F.S." Provider Manual V.A recognizes that prescription drugs may be dispensed by pharmacists or dispensing physicians. Provider Manual V.A.5.a. limits reimbursement to the pharmacist or dispensing practitioner, pursuant to the formula contained in the manual. For prescription drugs, Provider Manual V.A.5.b states that reimbursement shall be by the "pharmaceutical reimbursement formula," which is either the AWP plus a $4.18 dispensing fee or the "contracted reimbursement amount determined in accordance with the contractual arrangement between the provider and insurer." The Provider Manual does not address the dispensing of prescription drugs by an out-of- network or nonpreferred provider. Alan McClain, Jr., Carlisle executive vice-president, negotiated the Written Contract. In testimony, Mr. McClain identified a few contractual provisions that are not contained in the Written Contract, such as that the discounts are confidential, but that AmTrust North America could disclose them if it wished, and that the affiliates of AmTrust North America, including Petitioner, are parties to the Written Contract. Mr. McClain also testified that the three levels of discounts are primarily derived from course of dealing, rather than a formal schedule to the Written Contract. Mr. McClain's testimony is credited. Nothing in this record suggests any discord between the AmTrust family of corporations, on the one hand, and Carlisle and its direct and indirect contractual counterparties described above, on the other hand. To the contrary, the business relationships among all of these parties appear to be entirely satisfactory. This simple fact, not fraud or collusion, explains the readiness of the parties freely to supplement the Written Contract with layers of oral agreements-- some express and some implied in fact from course of dealing--in order to perpetuate, reinforce, and extend these advantageous business relationships. These same written and oral contracts, both express and implied, that have produced such satisfaction among the parties on the carrier side of the transaction have produced no similar effect on Respondent, which has limited its consideration to the Written Contract and rejected the oral contracts and course of dealing. Petitioner objects to Respondent's treatment of these contractual arrangements on the ground that Respondent has not scrutinized as closely the business relationships and their documentation on the provider's side of the transaction. In its least appealing form, Petitioner's argument is: if Respondent casually accepts the role of Prescription Partners as assignee without insisting on documentation, it must do the same as to the right of Petitioner to access the discounts provided by Carlisle and impose them on out-of-network or nonpreferred providers such as Dr. Daitch. The ultimate question, as a matter of law, is whether the operative reimbursement provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law support Respondent's proposed agency action. But Petitioner's argument, as a matter of fact, exposes serious flaws in Respondent's posture in this case. Nothing in the record suggests any problems demanding regulatory intervention in the form of Respondent's prosecution of Prescription Partner's claim to an additional reimbursement of $56.18. There is no suggestion that Petitioner or its contractual counterparties have disrupted the reimbursement process. In particular, there is no suggestion that the 12% discount from AWP at issue in this case is excessive by industry standards; to the contrary, it is a relatively modest discount. In a more appealing form, Petitioner's argument reflects that multiple parties may be involved in what would seem to the injured employee to be the simplest of transactions--obtaining 60 pills for chronic or recurring pain-- and the business relationships among these parties are defined by a variety of oral and written, express and implied, contracts. In this light, Respondent's failure to demand documentation of the contractual arrangements among the multiple parties on the provider side of the transaction implicitly acknowledges the role of oral contracts and course of dealing in defining business relationships. By contrast, Respondent's insistence on documentation of the business relationships among the multiple parties on the carrier side of the transaction is inconsistent with legitimate business practices. The Conclusions of Law will consider the extent to which Respondent's insistence on documentation on the carrier side of the transaction finds any support among the operative reimbursement provisions.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Workers' Compensation enter a final order dismissing the petition of Dr. Jonathan Daitch and Prescription Partners, LLC, for resolution of a reimbursement dispute. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 2013.
The Issue The issues are whether proposed and existing Florida Administrative Code rules, both numbered 59G-6.030, are valid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners are 120 hospitals--some not-for-profit, some for-profit, and some governmental--that are licensed under chapter 395, Florida Statutes, provide both inpatient and outpatient services, and participate in the Medicaid program. AHCA is the state agency authorized to make payments for services rendered to Medicaid patients. Before 2013, all Medicaid outpatient services were provided and paid fee-for-service. Under the fee-for-service model, hospitals submit claims to AHCA, and AHCA reimburses the hospitals based on the established rate. For many years, AHCA has set prospective Medicaid fee- for-service reimbursement rates for outpatient hospital services, either semi-annually or annually, based on the most recent complete and accurate cost reports submitted by each hospital; has re-published the Florida Title XIX Hospital Outpatient Reimbursement Plan (Outpatient Plan) that explained how the rates were determined; and has adopted the current Outpatient Plan by reference in rule 59G-6.030. In 2005, the Florida Legislature’s General Appropriations Act (GAA) stated that the funds appropriated for Medicaid outpatient hospital services reflected a cost savings of $16,796,807 “as a result of modifying the reimbursement methodology for outpatient hospital rates.” It instructed AHCA to “implement a recurring methodology in the Title XIX Outpatient Hospital Reimbursement Plan that may include, but is not limited to, the inflation factor, variable cost target, county rate ceiling or county ceiling target rate to achieve the cost savings.” AHCA responded by amending the Outpatient Plan to provide: “Effective July 1, 2005, a recurring rate reduction shall be established until an aggregate total estimated savings of $16,796,807 is achieved each year. This reduction is the Medicaid Trend Adjustment.” The amended Outpatient Plan was then adopted by reference in rule 59G-6.030, effective July 1, 2005. AHCA collaborated with the hospitals to determine how to accomplish the legislatively mandated reduction in a manner that would be fair to all the hospitals. It was decided to take the hospitals’ unaudited cost reports from the most recent complete fiscal year and the number of Medicaid occasions of service from the monthly report of AHCA’s Medicaid fiscal agent that corresponded to the hospitals’ fiscal years, and use an Excel spreadsheet program with a function called Goal Seek to calculate proportionate rate adjustments for each hospital to achieve the legislatively mandated aggregate savings. The resulting rate adjustments were incorporated in the hospital reimbursement rates, effective July 1, 2005. In 2006, there was no further Medicaid Trend Adjustment (MTA) reduction. However, in accordance with the instructions in the 2005 GAA, the 2005 MTA reduction of $16,796,807 was treated as a recurring reduction and was applied again in the 2006 Outpatient Plan, which again stated: “Effective July 1, 2005, a recurring rate reduction shall be established until an aggregate total estimated savings of $16,796,807 is achieved each year. This reduction is the Medicaid Trend Adjustment.” The 2006 Outpatient Plan also stated: “This recurring reduction, called the Medicaid Trend Adjustment, shall be applied proportionally to all rates on an annual basis.” It also came to be known as the first cut or cut 1. It again was applied by taking the hospitals’ most current unaudited cost reports and the corresponding occasions of service from the appropriate monthly report of the fiscal agent, and using the Excel spreadsheets and the Goal Seek function to calculate rate adjustments for each hospital. The cut 1 rate adjustments were incorporated in the hospital reimbursement rates, effective July 1, 2006. In 2007, the GAA stated that the funds appropriated for Medicaid outpatient hospital services were reduced by $17,211,796 “as a result of modifying the reimbursement for outpatient hospital rates, effective July 1, 2008.” This has been referred to as the second cut or cut 2. It instructed AHCA to “implement a recurring methodology in the Title XIX Outpatient Hospital Reimbursement Plan to achieve this reduction.” The 2008 Outpatient Plan again applied the first cut as a recurring reduction and stated that it was to be “applied proportionally to all rates on an annual basis.” It then made the second cut, which was to be “applied to achieve a recurring annual reduction of $17,211,796.” These cuts were again applied by taking the hospitals’ most current unaudited cost reports and the corresponding occasions of service from the appropriate monthly report of the fiscal agent, and using the Excel spreadsheets and the Goal Seek function to calculate rate adjustments for each hospital. The resulting rate adjustments were incorporated in the hospital reimbursement rates, effective July 1, 2008. This process was repeated in subsequent years. The third cut (cut 3) was in 2008; it was a $36,403,451 reduction. The fourth cut (cut 4) was in 2009, during a special session; it was a $19,384,437 reduction; however, per the GAA that made the fourth cut, it was not applied to the rates of certain children’s specialty hospitals, which were excluded from the reduction. In addition, using language similar to what AHCA had been using in the Outpatient Plans, the 2009 GAA stated: “The agency shall reduce individual hospital rates proportionately until the required savings are achieved.” The Legislature enacted cut 5 and cut 6 in 2009 and 2010. However, the GAAs stated that AHCA should not take these cuts if the unit costs before the cuts were equal to or less than the unit costs used in establishing the budget. AHCA determined that cuts 5 and 6 should not be taken. However, cuts 1 through 4 continued to be applied as recurring reductions, and rates were adjusted for cuts 1 through 4 in 2009 and 2010 in the same manner as before. In 2011, the GAA enacted cut 7; it was for $99,045,233 and was added to the previous cuts for all but certain children’s specialty and rural hospitals, which were excluded from the additional reduction. In setting the individual hospitals’ reimbursement rates, AHCA first applied cut 7 in the same manner as cuts 1 through 4. The result was a 16.5 percent rate adjustment for cut 7, which was much higher than for previous cuts. Some of the hospitals pointed this out to AHCA and to the Legislature and its staff. There was lots of discussion, and it was determined that the rate adjustment from cut 7 would be more like what the Legislature was expecting (about 12 percent), if budgeted occasions of service were used, instead of the number from the fiscal agent’s monthly report that corresponded to the most recent cost reports. AHCA agreed to change to budgeted fee-for- service occasions of service for cut 7, with the concurrence of the hospitals and the Legislature and its staff. The year 2011 was also the year the Legislature instituted what became known as the “unit cost cap.” In that year, the Legislature amended section 409.908, Florida Statutes, to provide: “The agency shall establish rates at a level that ensures no increase in statewide expenditures resulting from a change in unit costs effective July 1, 2011. Reimbursement rates shall be as provided in the General Appropriations Act.” § 409.908(23)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011). This part of the statute has not changed. The GAA that year elaborated: In establishing rates through the normal process, prior to including this reduction [cut 7], if the unit cost is equal to or less than the unit cost used in establishing the budget, then no additional reduction in rates is necessary. In establishing rates through the normal process, if the unit cost is greater than the unit cost used in establishing the budget, then rates shall be reduced by an amount required to achieve this reduction, but shall not be reduced below the unit cost used in establishing the budget. “Unit cost” was not defined by statute or GAA. To calculate what it was in 2011, AHCA divided the total dollar amount of Medicaid payments made to hospitals by AHCA by the number of Medicaid occasions of service for all hospitals. The result was $141.51. Since 2011, AHCA has applied the unit cost cap with reference to the 2011 unit cost of $141.51. Since then, AHCA has compared the 2011 unit cost to the current cost, calculated by dividing the total dollar amount of Medicaid payments made to all hospitals by AHCA by the number of Medicaid occasions of service for all hospitals, except in children’s and rural hospitals, to determine whether the unit cost cap would require a further rate reduction, after applying the MTA cuts. Using this comparison, the unit cost cap never has been exceeded, and no further rate adjustments ever have been required. It is not clear why AHCA excluded Medicaid occasions of service for children’s and rural hospitals from the unit cost calculations made after 2011. It could have been because those hospitals were excluded from cut 7 and cut 8. Cut 8 was enacted in 2012; it was for $49,078,485 and was added to the previous cuts for all but certain children’s specialty and rural hospitals, which were excluded from the additional reduction. In 2012, the Legislature specified in the GAA that budgeted occasions of service should be used in calculating the MTA reduction for inpatient hospitals. AHCA always treated inpatient and outpatient MTAs the same, and it viewed the specific legislative direction for the inpatient MTA as guidance and indicative of legislative intent that it should continue to use budgeted occasions of service for the outpatient cut 7 and should also use them for the outpatient cut 8. Again, the hospitals did not object since the result was a higher reimbursement rate. In 2014, the Florida Medicaid program began to transition Medicaid recipients from a fee-for-service model to a managed care model. Under the managed care model, AHCA pays a managed care organization (MCO) a capitation rate per patient. The MCOs negotiate contracts with hospitals to provide outpatient care at an agreed reimbursement rate per occasion of service. Since August 2014, the majority of Medicaid recipients has been receiving services through MCOs, rather than through fee-for-service. Currently, about 75 to 80 percent of Medicaid outpatient hospital occasions of service are provided through managed care In recognition of the shift to MCOs, the Legislature began to divide the Medicaid outpatient hospital reimbursement appropriation in the GAA between what AHCA reimburses directly to hospitals under the fee-for-service model and what it pays MCOs to provide those services under the MCO delivery system. This allocation of the budgets between fee-for-service and managed care necessarily accomplished a corresponding division of the recurring MTA reductions between the two delivery systems. The Legislature did not enact any statutes or GAAs requiring AHCA to change how it applies MTA reductions to determine fee-for-service outpatient reimbursement rate adjustments, or make any other changes in response to the transition to MCOs. There were no additional MTA reductions in 2015. The 2015 Outpatient Plan, which is incorporated in existing rule 59G- 6.030, applied the previous cuts as recurring reductions. The evidence was confusing as to whether cuts 7 and 8 were applied using the occasions of service in the fiscal agent’s monthly report corresponding to the hospitals’ most current unaudited cost reports, or using budgeted occasions of service. If the former, the numbers did not yet reflect much of the shift to the managed care model because of a time lag in producing cost reports, and the evidence suggested that the numbers were approximately the same as the budgeted occasions of service used previously. Whichever numbers were used, the resulting rate adjustments were incorporated in the hospitals’ reimbursement rates, effective July 1, 2015. Leading up to the 2016 legislative session, there was a legislative proposal to determine prospective Medicaid outpatient reimbursement rates using a completely new method called Enhanced Ambulatory Patient Groups (EAPGs). EAPGs would eliminate the need to depend on hospital cost reports and complicated calculations to determine the effects of MTA reductions on prospective hospital outpatient reimbursement rates, effective July 1, following the end of the legislative session each year. Hospitals, including some if not all of the Petitioners, asked the Legislature not to proceed with the proposed EAPG legislation until they had an opportunity to study it and provide input, and EAPGs were not enacted in 2016. However, section 409.905(6)(b) was amended, effective July 1, 2017, to require the switch to EAPGs. See note to § 409.905, Fla. Stat.; and ch. 2016-65, § 9, Laws of Fla. (2016). When it became apparent that EAPGs would not be in use for prospective reimbursement rates for fiscal year 2016/2017, AHCA basically repeated the 2015/2016 process, but adjusted the occasions of service used for calculating the hospitals’ rate reductions for cuts 7 and 8 by adding 14,000 occasions of service. At the end of July, AHCA published new rates effective July 1, 2016. When the new rates were published, they were challenged by some of the Petitioners under section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Citing section 409.908(1)(f)1., AHCA took the position that there was no jurisdiction and dismissed the petitions. That decision is on appeal to the First District Court of Appeal. The Petitioners also challenged the methodology used to calculate the new prospective reimbursement rates as a rule that was not adopted as required, and challenged the validity of existing rule 59G-6.030, which incorporated the 2015 Outpatient Plan by reference. These challenges became DOAH cases 16-6398RX through 16-6414RX. In response to DOAH cases 16-6398RX through 16-6414RX, AHCA adopted the 2016 Outpatient Plan by reference in proposed rule 59G-6.030. The 2016 Outpatient Plan provides more detail than the 2015 version. AHCA’s position is that the additional detail was provided to clarify the 2015 version. However, it changed the occasions of service used for calculating the hospitals’ rate reductions for cuts 7 and 8, as indicated in Finding 22, as well as some other substantive changes. The 2015 Outpatient Plan addressed the unit cost cap by stating: “Effective July 1, 2011, AHCA shall establish rates at a level that ensures no increase in statewide expenditures resulting from a change in unit costs.” The 2016 Outpatient Plan elaborates and specifies the calculation AHCA has been using, as stated in Finding 14. The 2015 Outpatient Plan provided that an individual hospital’s prospective reimbursement rate may be adjusted under certain circumstances, such as when AHCA makes an error in the calculation of the hospital’s unaudited rate. It also stated: “Any rate adjustment or denial of a rate adjustment by AHCA may be appealed by the provider in accordance with Rule 28-106, F.A.C., and section 120.57(1), F.S.” The 2016 Outpatient Plan deleted the appeal rights language from the existing rule. The effect of the existing and proposed rules on the Petitioners through their effect on managed care contract rates is debatable. Those rates do not have to be the same as the fee- for-service outpatient reimbursement rates, although they are influenced by the fee-for-service rates, and it is not uncommon for them to be stated as a percentage of the fee-for-service rates. By law, managed care contract rates cannot exceed 120 percent of the fee-for-service rates unless the MCO gets permission from AHCA, as provided in section 409.975(6). Currently, rates paid by MCOs for Medicaid hospital outpatient services average about 105 percent of the fee-for-service reimbursement rates. AHCA has indicated that it would not expect or like to see the contract rates much higher than that. It is not clear whether that still is AHCA’s position. If higher rates were negotiated, the impact of fee-for-services rate adjustments on managed care rates could be reduced or even eliminated. The effect of the existing and proposed rules on the Petitioners through their effect on how fee-for-service reimbursement rates are calculated is not disputed. With the transition to managed care, the effect is greater and clearly substantial. The recurring MTA reductions enacted by the Legislature through 2014, which total $224,015,229 (after taking into account $10,656,238 that was reinstated, and $4,068,064 that was added in consideration of trauma centers), are being spread over fewer fee-for-service occasions of service, especially for cuts 7 and 8, which significantly lowers the fee-for-service outpatient reimbursement rates calculated under the proposed rule. The Petitioners’ objections to the validity of the proposed and existing rules can be summarized as follows: a lack of legislative authority for recurring (i.e., cumulative) MTA reductions; a failure to adopt a fixed methodology to calculate individual hospital outpatient reimbursement rate adjustments resulting from MTA reductions; specifically, a failure to derive the number of fee-for-service occasions of service used in calculating individual hospital outpatient reimbursement rate adjustments in the same manner every year; conversely, a failure to increase the occasions of service used to calculate individual hospital outpatient reimbursement rate adjustments resulting from cuts 1 through 4; a failure of the unit cost cap in the existing rule to specify how it is applied; a failure of the unit cost cap in the proposed rule to compare the 2011 unit cost to the current cost, calculated by dividing the total dollar amount of Medicaid payments made to all hospitals by AHCA by the number of Medicaid occasions of service for all hospitals, including in children’s and rural hospitals; and proposed rule’s deletion of the language in the existing rule stating that a rate adjustment or denial can be appealed in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106 and section 120.57.
Findings Of Fact Friendly Village of Brevard, Inc. d/b/a Washington Square (herein, Washington Square) is an intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded (ICF/MR), located at 2055 North U.S. 1, in Titusville, Florida. Friendly Village of Orange, Inc., d/b/a Lake View Court (herein, Lake View Court), is also an ICF/MR located at 920 W. Kennedy Boulevard, in Eatonville, Florida. Howell Branch Court is the same type of facility, located at 3664 Howell Branch Road, Winter Park, Florida. All three facilities are operated by Developmental Services, Inc. All are certified ICF/MR's participating in the Florida Medicaid Program. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) is the state agency responsible for overseeing the ICF/MR Medicaid Program. Howell Branch entered the Florida Medicaid Program in July 1982; Washington Square entered the program on January 19, 1983; and Lake View Court entered the program on February 13, 1983. Prior to beginning operations, medicaid providers were requested to submit a budgeted cost report, a projection of what the provider anticipated spending during the coming year for services to its residents. HRS received those reports and established a per diem rate based on the costs and number of patients and arrived at a per patient, per day rate. Each month as services were provided, the ICF/MR billed the state Medicaid program for the number of patient days times the per diem. During the period in question, cost settlement would occur at the conclusion of the budgeted period. The provider would file his cost report detailing what was actually spent in Medicaid-allowable costs to provide the services, HRS would compare that amount with the amount budgeted and would settle with the provider. Prior to the July 1, 1984 ICF/MR Medicaid Reimbursement Plan, if a provider were under reimbursed (incurred allowable costs in excess of reimbursement) the provider would not receive additional reimbursement in the settlement. However, if the provider received reimbursement in excess of its allowed costs, the excess had to be paid back to HRS. This is called "one-way" cost settlement. Representatives of HRS and Florida's ICF/MR industry began negotiations on a new state reimbursement plan in 1982 and 1983. The participants in the negotiations sought to remove certain cost limitations and to insure that individual facilities would receive fair reimbursement of their Medicaid- allowable costs. The negotiations resulted in the Title XIX ICF/MR Reimbursement Plan dated July 1, 1984 (the 1984 Plan). The 1984 Plan was adopted as a rule by incorporation, in Rule 10C- 7.49(4)(a)2. Florida Administrative Code. The 1984 Plan contains a two-way cost settlement method to replace the one-way settlement method described above. This means that under the 1984 Plan, providers could receive additional reimbursement during settlement if their actual allowable costs exceeded reimbursement under the per diem rate. Washington Square and Lake View Court filed budgeted cost reports for the fiscal year ending February 19, 1984. HRS performed audits of these reports in 1985. The audits were issued in April and May 1988. The audits did not apply the two-way cost settlement method described in the 1984 Plan. Petitioners claim that a proper interpretation of the 1984 Plan is that two-way cost settlement is retroactive to January 1983 for new providers entering the program after January 1, 1983. That claim is based on the following language in the 1984 Plan and subsequent 1985 Plan: For a new provider entering the program subsequent to January 1, 1983, HRS will establish the cost basis for calculation of prospective rates using the first acceptable historical cost report covering at least a 12 month period submitted by the provider. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2, the 1984 Plan, pp 29-30. For a new provider entering the program subsequent to January 1, 1983, HRS will establish the cost basis for calculation of prospective rates using the first acceptable historical cost report covering at least a 12-month period submitted by the provider. Overpayment as a result of the difference between the approved budgeted interim rate and actual costs of the budgeted item shall be refunded to HRS. Underpayment as a result of the difference between the budgeted interim rate and actual allowable costs shall be refunded to the provider. The basis for calculating prospective rates will be the first year settled cost report. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, the 1985 Plan, p. 31.) Neither the above, nor any other language in the plans indicate that the 1984 Plan would become effective for any providers prior to July 1, 1984. HRS intended that the plan be prospectively applied. Francis "Skip" Martin was employed in HRS' Medicaid Cost Reimbursement Planning and Analysis Unit and was involved in negotiating and drafting the 1984 plan for the agency. He remembers no discussions of retroactive application of the plan. Nor could Petitioners' witnesses expressly recall that the negotiations included retroactive application of the "two- way" settlement method. Instead, they were aware that the department was working with them to establish a more acceptable reimbursement plan and they assumed that retroactivity was part of the plan. (transcript pp 95-98, 126.) Skip Martin explained that the January 1, 1983 date was arrived at by working backwards from July 1, 1984, the date of the plan. The intent was to establish a cutoff point for providers entering the program as to whether they would be considered under prospective rates or be given an interim rate and still be considered a new provider when the plan was implemented. The January 1, 1983, cutoff allowed for a year's worth of reporting history plus sufficient time for the provider to compile his cost report and submit it to the department, and time for the department to have received the cost report and have it included in the calculations that would be used on July 1, 1984. ICF/MR's entering the program after January 1, 1983, would not have had sufficient cost history for rate setting, and as "new providers" would come under a separate rate setting provisions in the plan. Carlton Dyke Snipes has worked in HRS' Medicaid Cost Reimbursement Analysis Section since 1983, and in November 1985, he became the section Administrator. He explained that the language cited above from page 31 of the 1985 Plan was a clarification of the intent that the two-way cost settlement implemented on July 1, 1984, apply to new providers, as well as existing providers. The method had not been expressly addressed in the July 1, 1984 plan in that section relating to new providers. As an alternative to retroactive application of the two-way cost settlement provision in the July 1, 1984 Plan, Petitioners contend that they should be allowed a waiver of class ceilings as provided in the plan in effect in 1983. This issue was raised in this proceeding for the first time at the final hearing. The 1983 ICF/MR Medicaid Reimbursement Plan includes this provision regarding waivers: The class ceiling under paragraph c above may be exceeded provided; the period of the limits shall not exceed six (6) months. The HCFA Regional Office will be notified in writing at least 10 days in advance in all situations to which this exception is to be applied and will be advised of the rationale for the decision, the financial impact, including the proposed rate and the number of facilities and patients involved. (Petitioners' Exhibit #7, p. 15) In one case discussed at hearing, HRS granted an exemption under this provision. The facility was an ICF/MR cluster facility, Sunrise Cape Coral. The application by the facility was cleared in advance by the federal agency, Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA). The 1983 Plan is no longer in effect and was superceded by the July 1, 1984 Plan. Petitioners did not apply for a waiver when the 1983 Plan was in effect. Instead, they claim that they did not know such an opportunity existed until discovery for this proceeding uncovered the Sunrise case. The issue with regard to Petitioner's Howell Branch facility differs from the audit issues affecting Washington Square and Lake View Court addressed above. HRS' audit of Howell Branch in 1988 includes an overpayment to the facility of approximately $115,000.00. Petitioners claim that Howell Branch should not have to reimburse those funds because during a portion of the eighteen-month cost reporting period Howell Branch was underpaid for an amount which should more than offset the overpayment. According to the provisions of the reimbursement plan which was in effect during the relevant period, July 1982 (when Howell Branch opened) through December 1983, HRS cost settled based on the lesser of: class ceilings in effect during the period, actual costs, or the budgeted interim rate. Class ceilings are established by HRS for various levels of care required by ICF/MR residents. These ceilings are based on cost reports received by HRS as of each June 30 and go into effect on October 1st of each year. Howell Branch, therefore, experienced three class ceilings during its July 1982 through December 1982 reporting period. HRS applied those three cost ceiling periods to Howell Branch, rather than monthly periods, as contended by Petitioners. As described by Carlton Dyke Snipes, MRS took the average cost determined by an audit report and every rate than had been in effect during that cost reporting period and, for every period that rate was in effect, applied the lesser of the average audited cost or the budgeted rate that was paid or the ceiling that was in effect and reprocessed the claims that had been made. This resulted in the $115,000.00 overpayment. If MRS had used average costs and average rates for the entire eighteen- month period, as advocated by Petitioners, the result would have been that ceilings would be exceeded during a portion of the eighteen month period.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order denying the petitions of Washington Square, Lake View Court and Howell Branch. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-2939 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Included in Preliminary Statement. 3 through 6. Adopted in Paragraph 1. 7. Adopted in Paragraph 2. 8 through 10. Adopted in Paragraph 3. 11 and 12. Adopted in Paragraph 5. 13 and 14. Adopted in Paragraph 6. Adopted in Paragraph 7. Rejected as unnecessary. 17 and 18. Adopted in Paragraphs 8 and 9, except for the implication that two- way reimbursement applied retroactively to January 1, 1983. Adopted in part in Paragraph 9, but the retroactive application of the methodology is rejected as inconsistent with the evidence. Adopted in Paragraph 11. Adopted in part in Paragraph 10, the statement of entitlement to two-way settlement is rejected as inconsistent with the evidence. Adopted in Paragraph 15. Rejected as argument. Adopted in part in Paragraph 16, otherwise rejected as argument. Rejected as inconsistent with the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. HAS' method of cost settlement was not inappropriate. Adopted in substances in Paragraph 19. Rejected as unnecessary 29 and 30. Rejected as argument and unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in Paragraphs 2 and 3 Adopted in Paragraph 8. 4 and 5. Adopted in Paragraphs 4 and 5. Adopted in Paragraph 6. Adopted in Paragraph 10. Adopted in Paragraphs 10 and 11. Adopted in Paragraph 17. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Bittman, and Karen L. Goldsmith P.O. Box 1980 Orlando, Florida 32802 Carl Bruce Morstadt and Kenneth Muszynski 1323 Winewood Boulevard, Bldg. One Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner be reimbursed for fiscal year 1979 and 1980 in accordance with the foregoing adjustments. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1982.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly licensed nursing home facility participating in the Medicaid Program administered and funded by Respondent. As a Medicaid Program participant, Petitioner is required annually to file a cost report with Respondent. From this cost report, Respondent establishes a per diem rate for the provider reimbursement effective the first day of the month following the month in which the cost report is received. Respondent provides each participating facility with forms to be used in submitting the annual cost report. These forms are sent to the participants by mail and are accompanied by instructions. Petitioner's cost report for the fiscal year ending October 31, 1980, was prepared by an independent accounting firm which, on November 26, 1980, mailed the report by Express mail to the following address: Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Reimbursement Supervisor, Medicaid Desk Review, Post Office Box 2050, Jacksonville, Florida 32203. Express mail guarantees next-day delivery. On November 27, 1980, a legal holiday under Section 683.01, Florida Statutes, petitioner's cost report was placed in Respondent's post office box in Jacksonville, Florida. Because of the holiday on November 27, 1980, Respondent's offices were closed. Respondent's offices were also closed on November 29, 1980, which is also a state holiday as observed by all state branches and agencies pursuant to Section 110.117, Florida Statutes. November 29 and 30, 1980, were Saturday and Sunday, respectively, on which days Respondent's offices were also closed. Petitioner's annual cost report was picked up from the post office by employees of Respondent on December 1, 1980, and delivered on that day to Respondent's Medicaid Review Desk. Because the cost report was received on December 1, 1980, Respondent assigned January 1, 1981, as the effective date of Petitioner's new rates, rather than the December 1, 1980, date which Petitioner contends is the correct effective date of its new rates because of its report having been placed in Respondent's post office box prior to December 1, 1980.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, United Health, Inc. (United), is the owner and operator of approximately one hundred and twenty-three nursing homes in thirteen states. In the State of Florida, it owns and operates sixteen nursing homes and one intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded that are licensed by respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). At issue in this proceeding are the cost reports and supplemental schedules filed by thirteen nursing home facilities.1 In accordance with Medicaid guidelines, petitioner was required to annually submit cost reports to HRS reflecting its allowable costs in providing Medicaid services to its patients. HRS is designated as the state agency responsible for the administration of Medicaid funds under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. In order to be reimbursed for said costs, the facility was required to show that the costs were in conformity with Federal and State Medicaid reimbursement principles. Those principles are embodied in the Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan (Plan) adopted by the State.2 This document contains the reimbursement methodology to be used for nursing homes who provide Medicaid services. In addition, providers must comply with Health Insurance Manual 15 (HIM-15), a compendium of federal cost reimbursement guidelines utilized by HRS, and generally accepted accounting principles. By letter dated September 9, 1985 petitioner requested that HRS adjust its July 1, 1985 reimbursement rates for the thirteen facilities to reflect certain annualized costs incurred during the preceding fiscal year ending December 31, 1984. According to the letter, the adjustment was appropriate under Section V.B.I.b. of the September 1, 1984 Plan. On October 21, 1985, an HRS Medicaid cost reimbursement analyst issued a letter denying the request on the following grounds: Our review of the information submitted with the fiscal year end 12/31/84 cost reports revealed that the annualized operating and patient care costs were not documented to be new and expanded services or related to licensure and certification requirements. The annualized property cost appeared to be 1 2 various purchases, repairs and maintenance and was not documented to be capital improvements. The denial prompted the instant proceeding. B. Reimbursement Principles In General Under the Medicaid reimbursement plan adopted for use in Florida, nursing homes are reimbursed by HRS on a prospective basis for their allowable costs incurred in providing Medicaid services. This method is commonly referred to as the prospective plan, and has been in use since 1977. Under this concept, a nursing home files with HRS, within ninety days after the close of its fiscal year, a cost report reflecting its actual costs for the immediate preceding fiscal year. Within the next ninety days, the nursing home is given a per diem reimbursement rate (or ceiling) to be used during the following twelve months.3 For example, if a provider's fiscal year ended December 31, 1984, its cost report would be due by March 31, 1985. HRS would then provide estimated reimbursement rates to be used during the period from July 1, 1985 through June 30, 1986. As can be seen, there is a time lag between the end of a cost reporting year and the provider's receiving the new rate. The new reimbursement rate is based upon the provider's actual costs in the preceding fiscal year (reporting period) adjusted upward by an inflation factor that is intended to compensate the provider for cost increases caused by inflation. The prospective plan enables a provider to know in advance what rates it will be paid for Medicaid services during that year rather than being repaid on a retroactive basis. If a provider operates efficiently at a level below the ceiling, it is "rewarded" being allowed to keep a portion of the difference. Conversely, if it exceeds the caps, it is penalized to the extent that it receives only the rates previously authorized by HRS, and must absorb the shortfall. At the same time, it should be noted that the reimbursement rate is not intended to cover all costs incurred by a provider, but only those that are reasonable and necessary in an efficiently operated facility. These unreimbursed costs are covered through other provider resources, or by a future cut in services. When the events herein occurred, there were two types of adjustments allowed under the prospective plan. The first adjustment is the inflation factor, and as noted above, it 3 authorizes the provider to adjust certain reported costs by the projected rate of inflation to offset anticipated cost increases due to inflation. However, because the prospective plan (and the inflation factor) ignores other cost increases that occur during the given year, HRS devised a second type of adjustment for providers to use. This adjustment is known as the gross-up provision, and allows the annualization of certain costs incurred by a provider during a portion of the reporting period. The concept itself .s embodied in subparagraph B.1.b. of Part V of the September 1, 1984 Plan. Its use may be illustrated with the following example. A provider constructs an addition to its facility with an in-service date at the end of the sixth month of the reporting period. By reflecting only the depreciation associated with the addition during the last six months of the reporting period, the facility understates its actual costs, and is reimbursed for only one-half of the facility's depreciation during the following year. Under the gross-up provision the provider grosses up, or annualizes, the reported cost to give it a full year's effect, thereby ensuring that the next year's rates will be more realistic. Although the provision has application to this proceeding, over objection by the nursing home industry it was eliminated from the Plan on October 1, 1985 and is no longer available to providers. At hearing HRS contended the provision should have been eliminated in 1984, but through oversight remained in effect until 1985. However this contention is rejected as not being credible, and is contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Finally, neither party could recall if a request under this provision had ever been filed. They do acknowledge that HRS has never approved such a request during the more than two years when the provision was operative. In addition to the gross-up and inflation provisions, there exists an alternative means for additional rate reimbursement through what is known as the interim rate provision. Under this provision, a provider can request an interim rate increase from HRS during the period when its prospective rates are in effect to cover major unexpected costs. Assuming a request is valid and substantiated, a provider is eligible for immediate cash relief dating back to the date of the actual expense. However, because of HRS' concern that this provision was being "abused", only those costs which exceed $5,000 and cause a change of 1% or more in the total prospective per diem rate are now eligible for reimbursement. These monetary thresholds on interim rate requests became effective September 1, 1984. When these higher thresholds were imposed, HRS made representations to the nursing home industry that a provider could still utilize the gross-up provision to cover other unexpected costs. Finally, it is noted that unlike the prospective rate, an interim rate is cost settled. This means the provider's cost reports are later audited, and excess reimbursements must be repaid to HRS. This differs from the prospective plan where any "overpayments" are not subject to recoupment by HRS. Even so, a provider is limited by the reasonableness and prudent buyer concepts which serve as a check on potential abuse by a provider. The Gross-Up Feature In its relevant form, the gross-up provision was first adopted for use by HRS in its April 1, 1983 Plan.4 It required HRS to: Review and adjust each provider's cost report referred to in A. (1.) as follows: * * * b. to compensate for new and expanded or discontinued services, licensure and certification requirements, and capital improvements which occurred during the reporting year but were not included or totally accounted for in the cost report. This language was incorporated with only minor changes into the September 1, 1984 Plan and is applicable to the cost reports in issue. In its 1984 form, the provision required HRS to review and adjust each provider's cost report as follows: b. To compensate for new and expanded or discontinued services, licensure and certification requirements, and capital improvements not included or totally accounted for in the reporting year. For additional costs to be provided, the provider must furnish adequate supporting documentation. 4 Accordingly, if a cost fits within one of the three categories, HRS is required to adjust a provider's report to compensate it for the expenditure. The April 1, 1983 Plan was negotiated by the nursing home industry and HRS representatives at a meeting in Gainesville, Florida. For this reason, it is commonly referred to as the Gainesville Plan. Through testimony of negotiators who participated at the meeting, it was established that the Plan had three objectives: to give proper payment to nursing homes; to meet state and federal regulations; and to help upgrade care in the nursing homes. At the same time, the negotiators recognized that a prospective plan based on inFla.ion alone overlooked other cost increases that occurred during a given year. Therefore, the gross-up provision was added to the Plan to ensure that providers could estimate (and recoup) their future costs in as accurate a manner as possible, and to bring the plan into compliance with federal guidelines. It was also designed to ensure that a provider did not have to wait an extraordinarily long time for expenses to be recognized. In addition, HRS was hopeful that the gross-up provision would minimize the providers' reliance upon the interim rate feature (which was intended to cover only major items) thereby reducing the agency's overall workload. Indeed, the interim and gross-up features were intended to complement each other, in that one provided immediate relief on major unexpected items while the other provided a means to adjust partial year costs incurred during the reporting period. The implementation of thresholds on the interim rate provision in September, 1984 increased the importance of the gross-up provision to handle smaller items. Therefore, HRS' contention that the interim and gross-up provisions are in conflict is hereby rejected. In order for a cost to be eligible for annualization, it must fall within one of three categories: new or expanded service, a capital improvement, or a cost to meet HRS' licensure and certification requirements. The parties have stipulated that HRS' denial of United's request was based solely upon HRS' perception that the costs did not fall within any of the three categories. The three types of costs within the feature are not defined in the Plan. Testimony from the Plan's negotiators established that the language in the gross-up feature was meant to be construed broadly and to encompass many costs. For this reason, no limitations were written into the Plan. Even so, the provision was not intended to give carte blanche authority to the providers to annualize every partial cost. There is conflicting testimony regarding the meaning of the term "capital improvement" and what expenditures are included within this category. However, Sections 108.1 and 108.2 of HIM-15, of which the undersigned has taken official notice, define a capital item as follows: If a depreciable asset has, at the time of its acquisition, an estimated useful life of at least 2 years and a historical cost of at least $500, its cost must be capitalized, and written off ratably over the estimated useful life of the asset. . . * * * Betterments and improvements extend the life or increase the productivity of an asset as opposed to repairs and maintenance which either restore the asset to, or maintain it at, its normal or expected service life. Repairs and maintenance costs are always allowed in the current accounting period. With respect to the costs of betterments and improvements, the guidelines established in Section 108.1 must be followed, i.e., if the cost of a betterment or improvement to an asset is $500 or more and the estimated useful life of the asset is extended beyond its original estimated life by at least 2 years, or if the productivity of the asset is increased significantly over its original productivity, then the cost must be capitalized. The above guidelines are more credible and persuasive than the limited definition of capital item enunciated at final hearing by HRS personnel. Therefore, it is found that the HIM-15 definition is applicable to the gross-up feature and will be used to determine the validity of petitioner's claim to gross up certain expenditures. There is also conflicting testimony as to what the term "new and expanded or discontinued services" includes. Petitioner construes this item to include any costs that increase the volume of services to a resident. Therefore, petitioner posits that an increase in staffing which likewise increases services to residents is subject to annualization. Conversely, HRS construes the term to cover any costs for new or expanded services that enable a facility to provide patients with services not previously provided or to expand an existing service to more patients in the facility. The latter definition is more credible and persuasive and will be used by the undersigned in evaluating petitioner's request. Finally, petitioner interprets the term "licensure and certification requirements" to cover any costs incurred to meet staffing requirements that are required by HRS rules. According to petitioner, the category would include expenditures that are made for so-called preventive maintenance purposes and to avoid HRS sanctions. On the other hand, HRS construes the language to cover costs incurred by a provider to either meet a new licensure and certification requirement, or to correct a cited deficiency. It also points out that salary increases were intended to be covered by the inflation factor rather than through this feature of the plan. This construction of the term is more reasonable, and is hereby accepted as being the more credible and persuasive. Petitioner's Request Petitioner's fiscal year ends on December 31. According to HRS requirements its cost reports must be filed by the following March 31. In accordance with that requirement petitioner timely filed its December 31, 1984 cost reports for the thirteen facilities on or before March 31, 1985. The reports have been received into evidence as petitioner's composite exhibit 3. Attached to the reports were schedules supporting a request for gross-up of certain capital items, additions and deletions of various personnel, and union salary increases that exceeded the inflation rate. The parties have not identified the actual dollar value of the items since only the concepts are in issue. In preparing the supporting schedules, United's assistant director of research reviewed all so-called capital items purchased by the thirteen facilities during the fiscal year, and determined which were purchased after the beginning of the year.5 He then calculated the depreciation on those 5 expenditures made after the beginning of the year and has included those amounts on the supporting schedules to be annualized. Consistent with the definition contained in Sections 108.1 and 108.2 of HIM-15, those items that are in excess of $500 (after annualization), that extend the useful life of the asset for two years or more, or that increase or extend the productivity of the asset are subject to annualization. It should be noted that repairs and maintenance items, as defined in Sections 108.1 and 108.2, are excluded from this category. Petitioner next seeks to adjust its rates by grossing up the net increase in costs associated with additions and deletions of various staff during the reporting period. Any net staffing additions that provide patients with services not previously provided or that expand an existing service to more patients in a given facility are properly subject to the gross- up provision. All others should be denied. Petitioner also contends that these costs should be considered as a licensure and certification requirement since they satisfy staffing requirements under HRS rules. To the extent the filling of old positions occurred, such expenditures are appropriately covered by the gross-up provision. The remainder do not fall within the purview of the provision. Finally, petitioner seeks to adjust its rates to cover all salary increases over and above the inflation factor that were awarded to union employees pursuant to its union contract. Under petitioner's theory, if such costs were not paid, United stood to lose staff through a strike which in turn could result in licensure and certification problems. But these concerns are speculative in nature, and such an interpretation would result in automatic approval of any salary increase called for by a union contract, no matter how unreasonable it might be. Since the expenditures do not meet the previously cited criteria, they must be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner's request to have its July 1, 1985 reimbursement rates adjusted for thirteen facilities to reflect annualized costs as submitted on supplemental schedules with its 1984 cost reports be approved in part, as set forth in the conclusions of law portion of this order. The remaining part of its request should be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1986.
