The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent, Department of Health ("Department"), acted contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications in its proposed decision to award the contract for Invitation to Bid No. DOH 12-007 (the "ITB") to Intervenor Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. ("Quest").
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of the proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On July 10, 2012, the Department issued the ITB. The ITB solicited bids for a three-year contract for the provision of clinical laboratory services to the Department and county health departments. The ITB estimated that the winning bidder will perform approximately 861,000 tests annually, which will produce sales of $9.3 million per year. Bids were received from four vendors: LabCorp, Quest, Florida Reference Laboratory, and Ecolab Group Co. The bids were opened on August 17, 2012. The Department found all four bids responsive. The ITB specified that the Department would make a single award based on the grand total of pricing for specified "core tests" for the initial three-year term and for a contingent three-year renewal term. Quest was the lowest bidder, and LabCorp was the second lowest bidder. The sum of Quest's core test pricing for the original three-year term and the contingent three-year renewal term for the relevant laboratory services was $29,555,864.96. The sum of LabCorp's core test pricing for the original three-year term and the contingent three-year renewal term was $36,059,437.52. Section 3.2 of the ITB provided definitions pertinent to the bid, including the following: Mandatory Requirements or Minimum Requirements -- means that the Department has established certain requirements with respect to proposals to be submitted by Respondent.1/ The use of shall, must, or will (except to indicate simple futurity) in this solicitation indicates compliance is mandatory. Failure to meet mandatory requirements will cause rejection of the bid or termination of the Contract/Purchase Order. Minor Irregularity -- used in the context of this solicitation and prospective Contract/Purchase Order, indicates a variation from the proposal terms and conditions which does not affect the price of the response, or give the respondent an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Bidders, or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department.2/ Section 4.15 of the ITB, titled "Responsive and Responsible," provided as follows: The Bidder shall complete and submit the following mandatory information or documentation as a part of the Bid Package. Any response which does not contain the information below shall be deemed non- responsive. Licensures-- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments, Certificate of Compliance and State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration Clinical Laboratory License Staffing Plan Attachment I Bid Price Pages-- Attachment III Initial Term & Renewal term (including balance of line minimum volume discount and phlebotomy services Required Certifications, Attachment VI The ITB provided no further clarification regarding the contents of the "Staffing Plan" beyond directing the bidders to "Attachment I" to the ITB. Attachment I was titled "Specifications of Clinical Laboratory Services" and contained six pages of additional specifications regarding services included in the bidders' prices, contractor liability, minimum tasks to be completed by the winning bidder, deliverables, and other requirements. Attachment I included the following specifications regarding staffing: Staffing Levels Each prospective offeror shall include its proposed staffing for technical, administrative, and clerical support including but not limited to a Contract Representative, Quality Control Manager, Staff Pathologist, Project Manager, Technical Support Manager, Technical Support Staff and statewide field representatives. The bidder shall provide hourly rate pricing, as an option to the contract, for an on-site Phlebotomist. The successful offeror shall maintain an adequate administrative organizational structure and support staff sufficient to discharge its contractual responsibilities. In the event the Department determines that the successful bidder's staffing levels do not conform to those promised in the proposal, it shall advise the successful offeror in writing and the successful offeror shall have 30 days to remedy the identified staffing deficiencies. Professional Qualification The successful bidder will be responsible for the staff affiliated with this proposal, insuring that they have the education, any professional licensure or certification which may be required by law, and experience necessary to carry out their duties. Staffing Changes The successful bidder shall staff the project with key personnel identified in the bidder's proposal, which are considered by the Department to be essential to this project. The bidder shall keep the Department notified of key staffing changes that directly impact services related to this solicitation. (Textual emphasis added.) The underscored language required the prospective offerer to include "proposed staffing" and required that the winning bidder staff the project with "key personnel identified in the bidder's proposal." The issue is whether the "Staffing Levels" and "Staffing Changes" provisions quoted above required the bidder to name the specific persons who would fill the "proposed staffing" and "key personnel" positions, or whether it would suffice for a bidder to indicate that it would fill those positions with qualified persons to be named after the bid is awarded. The term "key personnel" is undefined by the ITB. It is unclear from the specifications whether the "key personnel" referenced in "Staffing Changes" is synonymous with the "proposed staffing" referenced in "Staffing Levels." LabCorp interpreted "key personnel" to mean those persons named in the "Staffing Levels" provision: Contract Representative, Quality Control Manager, Staff Pathologist, Project Manager, Technical Support Manager, Technical Support Staff, and statewide field representatives. In its staffing plan, LabCorp provided the names of persons corresponding to each of the "Staffing Levels" positions named in the ITB, including a list of 69 field representatives and 19 sales support persons. The staffing plan submitted by Quest stated as follows: Quest Diagnostics has more than adequate staffing and capacity to meet the needs of the Florida Department of Health. Quest Diagnostics employs a Customer Solutions Manager (contract representative), Quality Assurance Manager (quality control manager), Medical Director and Senior Staff Pathologists, Project Manager, Specimen Processing Manager (technical support manager), Lab Manager (technical support staff), and Account Managers (statewide field representatives). Job descriptions for these positions are attached. Following this statement was a series of detailed job descriptions setting forth the qualifications, experience requirements and responsibilities for each of the named positions. Thus, Quest provided the Department with a set of job qualifications corresponding to the "Staffing Levels" provision of Attachment I to the ITB, but did not provide the name of a specific person to fill any of the positions. The Department concluded that Quest had sufficiently "identified" its key personnel. LabCorp did not provide the detailed job descriptions that Quest provided. For example, Sharon Kaplan is listed as "Project Manager" without further description of her qualifications, experience or duties. LabCorp contends that the ITB required the vendors to name specific persons who would fill those positions. The Department counters that the requirement to "identify" key personnel does not necessarily mean that the bidder must name the persons involved, and that Quest satisfied the ITB's requirement by "identifying" the positions it intended to fill and the qualifications for the positions named in the "Staffing Levels" section of Attachment I. Regina Taylor, the administrative service director of the Department's Bureau of Public Health Laboratories, performed the "responsive and responsible" review of the bids.3/ Ms. Taylor testified that the ITB "left the staffing plan a bit open-ended and left it up to the vendor as to how they would present it to us." The Department found both bids responsive though Quest and LabCorp each took a different approach to describing its staffing plan. Ms. Taylor stated that Quest would be able to name its personnel during the implementation process. She noted that LabCorp's bid provided the names of personnel but offered no detailed information regarding the qualifications or responsibilities of those persons beyond their job titles, whereas Quest provided detailed job descriptions without naming the persons who would fill the jobs. Ms. Taylor was not overly concerned about either company's ability to satisfy the requirements of the ITB. She stated, "Both Quest and LabCorp are national companies, so I'm sure that they have the adequate staff." The "Professional Qualification" section of Attachment I provides that the successful bidder is responsible for insuring that staff is properly qualified and certified. The "Staffing Levels" section allows the Department to review the successful bidder's staffing levels and require the bidder to remedy any deficiencies within 30 days of the Department's written notice. Ms. Taylor testified that the staffing provision section of the ITB was intended to ensure that the winning bidder had within its organization certain critical positions. The Department relied on its own experience in operating the state public health laboratory to identify the staffing requirements of the ITB. LabCorp points out that Quest was the only bidder that failed to submit a list of names of key personnel. Like LabCorp, Florida Reference Laboratory, and Ecolab Group Co. submitted the names of their key personnel. LabCorp also points out that Ms. Taylor's initial reaction to Quest's staffing plan submission was to call it "lame." Ms. Taylor's pronouncement on the quality of the Quest staffing plan was not a part of her review or of the Department's decision. Whether or not it she found it "lame," Ms. Taylor concluded that Quest's staffing plan was responsive to the bid criteria. The ITB requires the bidder to "identify" the "key personnel" with whom it proposes to staff the project. The ITB also states that the Department considers these key personnel to be "essential to this project." However, the ITB does not expressly define the term "key personnel." LabCorp named persons to fill the positions named in the Staffing Levels provision of Attachment I, which it reasonably took to be synonymous with "key personnel" referenced in the Staffing Changes provision of Attachment I. Via its staffing plan, Quest "identified" the key personnel without naming them. Given the lack of precision in these "open-ended" ITB specifications, both LabCorp and Quest made reasonable responses to the staffing requirements. Each chose a different way of "identifying" key personnel. Neither could be found to have clearly failed to comply with the bid specifications. The Department acted reasonably in finding both bids responsive. If LabCorp were correct that Quest's bid response did not comply with the staffing specifications, the question would arise as to whether Quest's deviation from the ITB specifications was a "minor irregularity" that could be waived by the Department. As noted above, the ITB defines "minor irregularity" as a variation from the bid specifications that does not affect the bidder's price or give the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders, or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. LabCorp has not identified any adverse impact on the Department that Quest's failure to name its proposed staff or key personnel would have. Indeed, LabCorp is hard pressed to state what advantage the Department gains by having the vendor name 69 field representatives and 19 sales support persons in its bid. The names are likely meaningless to the Department. "Sharon Kaplan, Project Manager" provides no more useful information than does Quest's description of the education, knowledge, and experience it requires of a project manager. The Department's concern was vendor capability to adequately staff the project, and the Department reasonably concluded that both vendors' bids demonstrated that capability. The basis for award of this bid was the lowest price. There was no scored evaluation of the ITB responses, no ranking of the staffing plans, and no effort contemplated by the Department to investigate the qualifications of the named personnel. The staffing plans submitted by LabCorp and Quest were of equal value to the Department as an indication of the vendors' understanding of the bid criteria and ability to fill the necessary positions. The ITB anticipates that the Department will deal with any staffing problems after the contract is awarded and the successful bidder begins to implement its program. LabCorp fails to identify any price advantage that Quest would gain by not naming the persons who would fill the key personnel positions, and none is apparent. Whether or not the personnel are named in the bid, the key positions would have to be filled at a cost that would presumably be roughly the same for each vendor. Again, the ITB gives the Department the power to raise staffing questions with the successful bidder and to require that problems be remedied within 30 days of written notice. LabCorp contends that Quest's failure to name key personnel gave it an advantage not enjoyed by other bidders. LabCorp argues that it went to the time and expense of preparing a detailed staffing plan, whereas Quest cut corners by submitting a set of generic job descriptions. Quest's method of setting forth its staffing plan may or may not have made its bid preparation easier, but did nothing to improve its competitive position in the bidding process. Quest's commitment to fill the required staffing positions was equal to LabCorp's. LabCorp points out that its own staffing plan included persons who are already on its payroll. LabCorp did not offer an estimate as to the likelihood that all of the approximately 102 persons named in its staffing plan would still be on its payroll by the time the company commenced performing the contract. LabCorp has no way of guaranteeing that all of those persons will be present to perform on the contract. Under the "Staffing Changes" provision, LabCorp would be allowed to substitute other qualified LabCorp employees for the named persons should the need arise. The virtual certainty of employee turnover supports the Department's position that the ITB did not require that bidders undertake the task of naming the employees who would fill the positions set forth in the "Staffing Levels" section of Attachment I. LabCorp argues that Quest's staffing plan gives it the opportunity to delay or avoid altogether hiring the staff necessary to perform the contract to the Department's satisfaction. As noted above, the inclusion of employee names in the bid could not guarantee that the named employees would still be working for LabCorp after the bid award. Quest's commitment to staff the project was no less than LabCorp's. LabCorp's argument suggests that Quest's bid should be rejected because Quest may later choose to breach the contract, which specifically requires the vendor to provide adequate qualified staff. In any procurement, there is always a remote potential that the winning vendor will breach or default. The Department's contract provides remedies for such defaults. In summary, it is found that the bids of both LabCorp and Quest met the requirements of the ITB as to staffing plans. Even if LabCorp's narrow interpretation of the ITB's requirements were correct, Quest's non-conforming response would constitute a minor irregularity.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order dismissing Laboratory Corporation of America, Inc.'s formal written protest and awarding the contract for Invitation to Bid No. DOH 12-007 to Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 2012.
Conclusions Having reviewed the Administrative Complaint, and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency has jurisdiction over the above-named Respondent pursuant to Chapter 408, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. 2. The Agency issued the attached Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form to the Respondent. (Ex. 1) The parties have since entered into the attached Settlement Agreement. (Ex. 2) Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 1. The findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Administrative Complaint are adopted and incorporated by reference into this Final Order. The Agency’s Administrative Complaint is UPHELD and the above-named Respondent’s license has been SURRENDERED. The parties shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Respondent facility is closed and will remain closed. Respondent surrendered its original health care clinic license to the Agency together with the executed settlement agreement, and the license is deemed cancelled and void effective May 15, 2014. The Respondent admits the allegations of facts contained in the Administrative Complaint and has waived its right to have an administrative proceeding. 3. In accordance with Florida law, the Respondent is responsible for retaining and appropriately distributing all client records within the timeframes prescribed in the authorizing statutes and applicable administrative code provisions. The Respondent is advised of Section 408.810, Florida Statutes. 4. In accordance with Florida law, the Respondent is responsible for any refunds that may have to be made to the clients. 5. The Respondent is given notice of Florida law regarding unlicensed activity. The 1 Filed November 19, 2014 3:17 PM Division of Administrative Hearings Respondent is advised of Section 408.804 and Section 408.812, Florida Statutes. The Respondent should also consult the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. The Respondent is notified that the cancellation of an Agency license may have ramifications potentially affecting accrediting, third party billing including but not limited to the Florida Medicaid program, and private contracts. 6. The Respondent shall pay the Agency an administrative fine of $5,000.00. If full payment has been made, the cancelled check acts as receipt of payment and no further payment is required. If full payment has not been made, payment is due within 30 days of this Final Order. Overdue amounts are subject to statutory interest and may be referred to collections. A check made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration” and containing the AHCA ten-digit number should be sent to: Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 7. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. Any requests for administrative hearings are hereby dismissed, and the above-styled case is hereby closed. ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on thisee2f day of Ochlboe , 2014. Elizabeth Didek, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and correc ry of this Ping, Order was served on the below-named persons by the method designated on this ay of Eee , 2014. spa j Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Thomas Jones, Esquire Facilities Intake Unit Health Care Clinic Unit Manager Agency for Health Care Administration Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) Finance & Accounting Arlene Mayo-Davis, Field Office Manager Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Electronic Mail Katrina Derico-Harris Warren J. Bird, Assistant General Counsel Medicaid Accounts Receivable ; Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) | (Electronic Mail) Shawn McCauley Juan Pablo Broche, Esquire Medicaid Contract Management Quintero Broche, P.A. Agency for Health Care Administration 75 Valencia Avenue, Suite 800 (Electronic Mail) Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (U.S. Mail) NOTICE OF FLORIDA LAW 408.804 License required; display.-- (1) It is unlawful to provide services that require licensure, or operate or maintain a provider that offers or provides services that require licensure, without first obtaining from the agency a license authorizing the provision of such services or the operation or maintenance of such provider. (2) A license must be displayed in a conspicuous place readily visible to clients who enter at the address that appears on the license and is valid only in the hands of the licensee to whom it is issued and may not be sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred, voluntarily or involuntarily. The license is valid only for the licensee, provider, and location for which the license is issued. 408.812 Unlicensed activity. -- (1) A person or entity may not offer or advertise services that require licensure as defined by this part, authorizing statutes, or applicable rules to the public without obtaining a valid license from the agency. A licenseholder may not advertise or hold out to the public that he or she holds a license for other than that for which he or she actually holds the license. (2) The operation or maintenance of an unlicensed provider or the performance of any services that require licensure without proper licensure is a violation of this part and authorizing statutes. Unlicensed activity constitutes harm that materially affects the health, safety, and welfare of clients. The agency or any state attorney may, in addition to other remedies provided in this part, bring an action for an injunction to restrain such violation, or to enjoin the future operation or maintenance of the unlicensed provider or the performance of any services in violation of this part and authorizing statutes, until compliance with this part, authorizing statutes, and agency rules has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the agency. (3) It is unlawful for any person or entity to own, operate, or maintain an unlicensed provider. If after receiving notification from the agency, such person or entity fails to cease operation and apply for a license under this part and authorizing statutes, the person or entity shall be subject to penalties as prescribed by authorizing statutes and applicable rules. Each day of continued operation is a separate offense. (4) Any person or entity that fails to cease operation after agency notification may be fined $1,000 for each day of noncompliance. (5) When a controlling interest or licensee has an interest in more than one provider and fails to license a provider rendering services that require licensure, the agency may revoke all licenses and impose actions under s. 408.814 and a fine of $1,000 per day, unless otherwise specified by authorizing statutes, against each licensee until such time as the appropriate license is obtained for the unlicensed operation. (6) In addition to granting injunctive relief pursuant to subsection (2), if the agency determines that a person or entity is operating or maintaining a provider without obtaining a license and determines that a condition exists that poses a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of a client of the provider, the person or entity is subject to the same actions and fines imposed against a licensee as specified in this part, authorizing statutes, and agency rules. (7) Any person aware of the operation of an unlicensed provider must report that provider to the agency.
The Issue Whether Medicaid overpayments were made to Petitioner and, if so, what is the total amount of those overpayments.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, including the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation, the following findings s of fact are made: Petitioner and his Practice Petitioner is a general practice physician. He has been licensed to practice medicine in Florida for the past ten years. He is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, in private practice in Miami-Dade County, Florida Petitioner's Participation in the Medicaid Program During the Audit Period, Petitioner was authorized to provide physician services to eligible Medicaid patients. Petitioner provided such services pursuant to a valid provider agreement with AHCA.4 Petitioner's Medicaid provider number was, and remains, 3759873 00 Petitioner billed all of the Medicaid claims that are the subject of the instant controversy under this (individual) provider number. Handbook Provisions As a prerequisite to his entitlement to Medicaid payment for services rendered during the Audit Period, Petitioner was required to comply with, among other things, the provisions of the Physician Coverage and Limitations Handbook (PCL Handbook) then in effect. Medical Necessity Chapter 2 of the PCL Handbook provided that the Medicaid program would reimburse physician providers for services "determined [to be] medically necessary" and not duplicative of another provider's service, and it went on to state as follows: In addition, the services must meet the following criteria: the services must be individualized, specific, consistent with symptoms or confirmed diagnosis of the illness or injury under treatment, and not in excess of the recipient's needs; the services cannot be experimental or investigational; the services must reflect the level of services that can be safely furnished and for which no equally effective and more conservative or less costly treatment is available statewide; and the service must be furnished in a manner not primarily intended for the convenience of the recipient, the recipient's caretaker, or the provider. The fact that a provider has prescribed, recommended, or approved medical or allied care, goods, or services does not, in itself, make such care, goods or services medically necessary or a covered services. Radiology Services Chapter 2 of the PCL Handbook further provided that, "[t]o be reimbursed the maximum fee [or 'global fee'] for a radiology service, the physician must provide both the technical and professional components." A physician provider billing the "global fee" was not authorized, pursuant Chapter 2 of the PCL Handbook, to also seek additional payment for the "professional component" of that fee. Doing so amounted to impermissible "double-billing." Coding Chapter 3 of the PCL Handbook "describe[d] the procedure codes for the services reimbursable by Medicaid that [had to be] used by physicians providing services to eligible recipients." As explained on the first page of this chapter of the handbook: The procedure codes listed in this chapter [were] Health Care Financing Administration Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Levels 1, 2 and 3. These [were] based on the Physician[]s['] Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) book. The CPT include[d] HCPCS descriptive terms and numeric identifying codes and modifiers for reporting services and procedures. . . . The Physicians' Current Procedural Terminology At all times material to the instant case, the American Medical Association's Physicians' Current Procedural Terminology (or the "CPT") referred to in Chapter 3 of the PCL Handbook contained an "[i]ntroduction," which read, in pertinent part, as follows: Current Procedural Terminology, Fourth Edition (CPT) is a systematic listing and coding of procedures and services performed by physicians. Each procedure or service is identified by a five digit code. . . . Inclusion of a descriptor and its associated specific five-digit identifying code number in CPT is generally based upon the procedure being consistent with contemporary medical practice and being performed by many physicians in clinical practice in multiple locations. . . . * * * Section Numbers and Their Sequences Evaluation and Management 99201 to 99499 * * * Surgery 10040 to 69979 Radiology (Including Nuclear Medicine and Diagnostic Ultrasound) 70010 to 79999 Pathology and Laboratory 80002 to 89399 Medicine (except Anesthesiology) 90701 to 99199 * * * The CPT had "[e]valuation and [m]anagement (E/M) [s]ervice [g]uidelines" (E/M Guidelines). It was noted on the first page of the E/M Guidelines that: The E/M section is divided into broad categories such as office visits, hospital visits, and consultations. Most of the categories are further divided into two or more subcategories of E/M services. For example, there are two subcategories of office visits (new patient and established patient) and there are two subcategories of hospital visits (initial and subsequent). The subcategories of the E/M services are further classified into levels of E/M services that are identified by specific codes. . . . "New and [e]stablished patient[s]" were described in the E/M Guidelines as follows: A new patient is one who has not received any professional services from the physician or another physician of the same specialty who belongs to the same group practice, within the past three years. An established patient is one who has received professional services from the physician or another physician of the same specialty who belongs to the same group practice, within the past three years. The concept of "[l]evels of E/M [s]ervices" was described, in pertinent part, as follows in the E/M Guidelines: Within each category or subcategory of E/M service, there are three to five levels of E/M services available for reporting purposes. Levels of E/M services are not interchangeable among the different categories of service. For example, the first level of E/M services in the subcategory of office visit, new patient, does not have the same definition as the first level of E/M services in the subcategory of office visit, established patient. The levels of E/M services include examinations, evaluations, treatments, conferences with or concerning patients, preventative pediatric and adult health supervision, and similar medical services, such as the determination of the need and/or location for appropriate care. Medical screening includes the history, examination, and medical decision-making required to determine the need and/or location for appropriate care and treatment of the patient (e.g., office and other outpatient setting, emergency department, nursing facility, etc.). The levels of E/M services encompass the wide variations in skill, effort, time, responsibility and medical knowledge required for the prevention or diagnosis and treatment of illness or injury and the promotion of optimal health. Each level of E/M services may be used by all physicians. The descriptors for the levels of E/M services recognize seven components, six of which are used in defining the levels of E/M services. These components are: history; examination; medical decision making; counseling; coordination of care; nature of presenting problem; and time. The first three of these components (history, examination and medical decision making) are considered the key components in selecting a level of E/M services. . . . The next three components (counseling, coordination of care, and the nature of the presenting problem) are considered contributory factors in the majority of encounters. . . . * * * The actual performance and/or interpretation of diagnostic tests/studies ordered during a patient encounter are not included in the levels of E/M services. Physician performance of diagnostic tests for which specific CPT codes are available may be reported separately, in addition to the appropriate E/M code. The physician's interpretation of the results or diagnostic tests/studies (i.e., professional component) with preparation of a separate distinctly identifiable signed written report may also be reported separately, using the appropriate CPT code with the modifier -26 appended. * * * Time . . . . The inclusion of time as an explicit factor beginning in CPT 1992 is done to assist physicians in selecting the most appropriate level of E/M services. It should be recognized that the specific times expressed in the visit code descriptors are averages, and therefore represent a range of times which may be higher or lower depending on actual clinical circumstances. * * * The E/M Guidelines contained "[i]nstructions for [s]electing a [l]evel of E/M [s]ervice," which read, in pertinent part, as follows: * * * Review of Level of E/M Service Descriptors and Examples in the Selected Category or Subcategory The descriptors for the levels of E/M services recognize seven components, six of which are used in defining the levels of E/M services. These components are: history; examination; medical decision making; counseling; coordination of care; nature of presenting problem; and time. The first three or these components (i.e., history, examination and medical decision making) are considered the key components in selecting a level of E/M services. An exception to this rule is in the case of visits which consist predominantly of counseling or coordination of care. . . . The nature of the presenting problem and time are provided in some levels to assist the physician in determining the appropriate level of E/M service. Determine the Extent of History Obtained The extent of history is dependent upon clinical judgment and on the nature of the presenting problem(s). The levels of E/M services recognize four types of history that are defined as followed: Problem Focused: chief complaint; brief history of present illness or problem. Expanded Problem Focused: chief complaint; brief history of present illness; problem pertinent system review. Detailed: chief complaint; extended history of present illness; problem pertinent system review extended to include a review of a limited number of additional systems; pertinent past, family and/or social history directly related to the patient's problems. Comprehensive: chief complaint; extended history of present illness; review of systems which is directly related to the problem(s) identified in the history of the present illness plus a review of all additional body systems; complete past, family and social history. * * * Determine the Extent of Examination Performed The extent of the examination performed is dependent on clinical judgment and on the nature of the presenting problem(s). The levels of E/M services recognize four types of examinations that are defined as follows: Problem Focused: a limited examination of the affected body area or organ system. Expanded Problem Focused: a limited examination of the affected body area or organ system and other symptomatic or related organ system(s). Detailed: an extended examination of the affected body area(s) and other symptomatic or related organ system(s). Comprehensive: a general multi-system examination or a complete examination of a single organ system. . . . For the purposes of these CPT definitions, the following body areas are recognized Head, including the face Neck Chest, including breasts and axilla Abdomen Genitalia, groin, buttocks Back Each extremity For the purposes of these CPT definitions, the following organ systems are recognized Eyes Ears, Nose, Mouth and Throat Cardiovascular Respiratory Gastrointestinal Genitourinary Musculoskeletal Skin Neurologic Psychiatric Hematologic/Lymphatic/Immunologic Determine the Complexity of Medical Decision Making Medical decision making refers to the complexity of establishing a diagnosis and/or selecting a management option as measured by: the number of possible diagnoses and/or the number of management options that must be considered; the amount and/or complexity of medical records, diagnostic tests, and/or other information that must be obtained, reviewed and analyzed; and -The risk of significant complications, morbidity and/or mortality, as well as comorbidities, associated with the patient's presenting problem(s), the diagnostic procedure(s) and/or the possible management options. Four types of medical decision making are recognized: straightforward; low complexity; moderate complexity; and high complexity. To qualify for a given type of decision making, two of the three elements [shown below] must be met or exceeded. Type of Decision Making: straightforward; Number of Diagnoses or Management Options: minimal; Amount and/or Complexity of Data to be Reviewed: minimal or none; Risk of Complications and/or Morbidity or Mortality: minimal Type of Decision Making: low complexity; Number of Diagnoses or Management Options: limited; Amount and/or Complexity of Data to be Reviewed: limited; Risk of Complications and/or Morbidity or Mortality: low Type of Decision making: moderate complexity; Number of Diagnoses or Management Options: multiple; Amount and/or Complexity of Data to be Reviewed: moderate; Risk of Complications and/or Morbidity or Mortality: moderate Type of Decision Making: High complexity; Number of Diagnoses or Management Options: extensive; Amount and/or Complexity of Data to be Reviewed: extensive; Risk of Complications and/or Morbidity or Mortality: high Comorbidities/underlying diseases, in and of themselves, are not considered in selecting a level of E/M services unless their presence significantly increases the complexity of the medical decision making. Select the Appropriate Level of E/M Services Based on the Following For the following categories/ subcategories, all of the key components, i.e., history, examination, and medical decision making, must meet or exceed the stated requirements to qualify for a particular level of E/M service: office, new patient; hospital observation services; initial hospital care; office consultations; initial inpatient consultations; confirmatory consultations; emergency department services; comprehensive nursing facility assessments; domiciliary care, new patient; and home, new patient. . . For the following categories/ subcategories, two of the three key components, (i.e., history, examination, and medical decision making) must meet or exceed the stated requirements to qualify for a particular level of E/M service: office, established patient; subsequent hospital care; follow-up inpatient consultations; subsequent nursing facility care; domiciliary care, established patient; and home, established patient. In the case where counseling and/or coordination of care dominates (more than 50%) of the physician/patient and/or family encounter (face-to-face time in the office or other outpatient setting or floor/unit time in the hospital or nursing facility) then time is considered the key or controlling factor to qualify for a particular level of E/M services. The extent of counseling and/or coordination of care must be documented in the medical record.[5] The CPT contained the following codes and code descriptions for "E/M" office and other outpatient services: New Patient 99201 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient, which requires these three key components: a problem focused history; a problem focused examination; and straightforward medical decision making. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problems are self- limited or minor. Physicians typically spend 10 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * 99202 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient which requires these three key components: an expanded problem focused history; an expanded problem focused examination; and straightforward medical decision making. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of low to moderate severity. Physicians typically spend 20 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * 99203 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient which requires these three key components: a detailed history; a detailed examination; and medical decision making of low complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate severity. Physicians typically spend 30 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * 99204 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient which requires these three key components: a comprehensive history; a comprehensive examination; and medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate to high severity. Physicians typically spend 45 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * 99205 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient which requires these three key components: a comprehensive history; a comprehensive examination; and medical decision making of high complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problems are of moderate to high severity. Physicians typically spend 60 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * Established Patient 99211 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient that may not require the presence of a physician. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are minimal. Typically, 5 minutes are spent performing or supervising these services. * * * 99212 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: a problem focused history; a problem focused examination; straightforward medical decision making. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are self- limited or minor. Physicians typically spend 10 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * 99213 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: an expanded problem focused history; an expanded problem focused examination; medical decision making of low complexity. Counseling and coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of low to moderate severity. Physicians typically spend 15 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * 99214 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: a detailed history; a detailed examination; medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate to high severity. Physicians typically spend 25 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * 99215 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: a comprehensive history; a comprehensive examination; medical decision making of high complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate to high severity. Physicians typically spend 40 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. The CPT provided separate codes for "prolonged physician service with direct (face-to-face) patient contact" and contained the following explanation as to when these codes were to be used: Codes 99354-99357 are used when a physician provides prolonged service involving direct (face-to-face) patient contact that is beyond the usual service in either the inpatient or outpatient setting. This service is reported in addition to other physician service, including evaluation and management service at any level. Appropriate codes should be selected for supplies or procedures performed in the care of the patient during this period. Codes 99354-99357 are used to report the total duration of face-to-face time spent by a physician on a given date providing prolonged service, even if the time spent by the physician on that date is not continuous. Code 99354 or 99356 is used to report the first hour of prolonged service on a given date, depending on the place of service. Either code also may be used to report a total duration of prolonged service of 30-60 minutes on a given date. Either code should be used only once per date, even if the time spent by the physician is not continuous on that date. Prolonged service of less than 30 minutes total duration on a given date is not separately reported because the work involved is included in the total work of the evaluation and management codes. Code 99355 or 99357 is used to report each additional 30 minutes beyond the first hour, depending on the place of service. Either code may also be used to report the final 15-30 minutes of prolonged service on a given date. Prolonged service of less than 15 minutes beyond the first hour or less than 15 minutes beyond the final 30 minutes is not reported separately. * * * The Audit and Aftermath Commencing in or around August 2000, AHCA conducted an audit of paid Medicaid claims submitted by Petitioner for services assertedly rendered from May 22, 1998, through May 22, 2000.6 Petitioner had submitted 4,574 Medicaid claims for services assertedly rendered during the Audit Period to 492 patients, for which he had received payments totaling $156,903.14. From the 492 Medicaid patients to whom Petitioner had assertedly provided services during the Audit Period, AHCA randomly selected a "cluster sample" of 41, and obtained from Petitioner medical records he had on file for these 41 patients. Petitioner had submitted a total of 325 claims for services assertedly rendered to the 41 patients in the "cluster sample" during the Audit Period and had received a total of $11,562.14 in Medicaid payments for these services.7 Each of these claims was reviewed to determine whether it was supported by information contained in the medical records obtained from Petitioner. Based on a preliminary review, AHCA determined that Petitioner had been overpaid a total $58,157.96 for the Medicaid claims he had submitted for services assertedly rendered during the Audit Period. By letter dated September 10, 2002, AHCA advised Petitioner of this preliminary determination and "encourage[d] [him] to submit any additional information or documentation" in his possession that he believed would "serve to reduce the overpayment." The antepenultimate and penultimate paragraphs of the letter read as follows: Since you have a choice of accepting the above overpayment or submitting additional information, this is not a final action by the Agency for Health Care Administration. If you have not made payment within thirty (30) days, we will prepare and send to you the final agency determination, taking into consideration any information or documentation that you submit within that time period. Petitioner did not "ma[k]e payment within thirty (30) days" of AHCA's September 10, 2002, letter. As promised, following another review conducted after the expiration of this 30-day period, AHCA "prepare[d] and sen[t] to [Petitioner]" its Final Agency Audit Report showing the calculation of overpayments made to Petitioner during the Audit Period.8 AHCA's Final Agency Audit Report was dated January 28, 2003, and in the form of a letter to Petitioner, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: Medicaid Integrity has completed the review of your Medicaid claims for the procedures specified below for dates of service during the period May 22, 1998 through May 22, 2000. A Provisional Agency Audit Report, dated September 10, 2002, was sent to you indicating that we had determined you were overpaid $58,157.96. Based upon a review of all documentation submitted, we have determined that you were overpaid $58,157.96 for services that in whole or in part are not covered by Medicaid. Pursuant to Section 409.913, Florida Statutes (F.S.), this letter shall serve as notice of the following sanction(s): The provider is subject to comprehensive follow-up review in six months. In determining the appropriateness of Medicaid payment pursuant to Medicaid policy, the Medicaid program utilizes procedure codes, descriptions, policies, limitations and requirements found in the Medicaid provider handbooks and Section 409.913, F.S. In applying for Medicaid reimbursement providers are required to follow the guidelines set forth in the applicable rules[9] and Medicaid fee schedules, as promulgated in the Medicaid policy handbooks, billing bulletins, and the Medicaid provider agreement. Medicaid cannot pay for services that do not meet these guidelines. The following is our assessment of why certain claims paid to your provider number do not meet Medicaid requirements. The audit work papers detailing the claims affected by this assessment are attached. REVIEW DETERMINATION(S) Medicaid policy specifies how medical records must be maintained. A review of your medical records revealed that some services for which you billed and received payment were not documented. Medicaid requires documentation of the services and considers payments made for services not appropriately documented an overpayment. Medicaid policy defines the varying levels of care and expertise required for the evaluation and management procedure codes for office visits. The documentation you provided supports a lower level of office visit than the one for which you billed and received payment. The difference between the amounts you were paid and the correct payment for the appropriate level of service is considered an overpayment. Medicaid policy requires services performed be medically necessary for the diagnosis and treatment of an illness. You billed and received payments for services for which the medical records, when reviewed by a Medicaid physician consultant, indicated that the services provided did not meet the Medicaid criteria for medical necessity. The claims, which were considered medically unnecessary, were disallowed and the money you were paid for these procedures is considered an overpayment. Medicaid policy addresses specific billing requirements and procedures. In some instances, you billed a procedure code as global and also billed the professional when the professional component was incorporated in the global fee. The difference between the amounts you were paid and the appropriate fee is considered an overpayment. The overpayment was calculated as follows: A random sample of 41 recipients respecting whom you submitted 325 claims was reviewed. For those claims in the sample which have dates of service from May 22, 1998, through May 22, 2000, an overpayment of $5,004.04 or $15.39704606 per claim was found, as indicated on the accompanying schedule. Since you were paid for a total (population) of 4,574 claims for that period, the point estimate of the total overpayment is $15.39704606 x 4,574=$70,426.09. There is a 50 percent probability that the overpayment to you is that amount or more. There was then an explanation of the "statistical formula for cluster sampling" that AHCA used and how it "calculated that the overpayment to [Petitioner was] $58,157.96 with a ninety-five percent (95%) probability that it is that amount or more." The concluding portions of the letter advised Petitioner of his right to "request an administrative hearing [on this overpayment determination] pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes." The "Medicaid physician consultant" referred to in AHCA's January 28, 2003, letter was Lisa Kohler, M.D., a Florida-licensed "family physician," who is certified by the American Board of Family Practice and is a fellow of the American Academy of Family Physicians. Dr. Kohler received her medical education at the University of South Florida College of Medicine, from which she graduated in 1985. After graduation, she did her internship and residency at Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center's Family Practice Residency program. In 1988, following the completion of her residency, she entered private practice. She currently serves as the Associate Director of the Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center's Family Practice Residency program. In addition, she is a Clinical Assistant Professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of South Florida College of Medicine and the Volunteer Medical Director of the Neighborhood Health Services in Tallahassee, Florida, a health clinic that provides free medical care to indigent patients. In accordance with the "peer review" provisions of Section 409.9131, Florida Statutes, which became effective July 1, 1999, AHCA had Dr. Kohler review all of the records that Petitioner had provided regarding the 41 patients in the "cluster sample"10 to determine whether there was documentation to support the Medicaid claims relating to these patients that Petitioner had submitted for services assertedly rendered during the Audit Period. In conducting her "peer review," Dr. Kohler did not interview any of the 41 patients in the "cluster sample," nor did she take any other steps to supplement the information contained in the records she examined. Her assessment of the propriety of Petitioner's billing was based exclusively on what was in those records and no other information. On February 19, 2003, Petitioner requested an administrative hearing on the overpayment determination (announced in AHCA's January 28, 2003, letter to Petitioner). On or about August 20, 2003, following a meeting between the parties, AHCA made a downward revision in its overpayment calculation, to $47,931.79. AHCA has made no additional revisions to its overpayment calculation in the instant case. It maintains that Petitioner received $47,931.79 in Medicaid overpayments for services claimed to have been provided during the Audit Period. In making this final overpayment calculation, AHCA determined, correctly, that Petitioner was overpaid a total of $3,867.62, or $11.90036931 per claim, for the 325 claims he had submitted seeking reimbursement from Medicaid for services assertedly rendered during the Audit Period to the 41 patients in the "cluster sample." Using a statistical formula the validity of which Petitioner has not disputed, AHCA extended these results to the total "population" of 4,574 Medicaid claims that Petitioner had submitted for services assertedly rendered during the Audit Period, and it correctly calculated that Petitioner had been overpaid a total of $47,931.79. Simple Mistake or Fraud? There has been no allegation made, nor proof submitted, that any of Petitioner's overbillings was the product of anything other than simple mistake or inadvertence on Petitioner's part.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that AHCA enter a final order finding that Petitioner received $47,931.79 in Medicaid overpayments for paid claims covering the period from May 22, 1998, through May 22, 2000, and requiring Petitioner to repay this amount to AHCA. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 2004.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a medical doctor, in his treatment of Patient M.A., failed to keep legible medical records in violation of section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2007); prescribed or administered inappropriate or excessive quantities of controlled substances in violation of section 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes (2007); committed medical malpractice by practicing below the standard of care in violation of section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2007); failed to perform a statutory or legal obligation placed upon a licensed physician in violation of section 458.331(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2007); and violated any provision of chapter 458 or chapter 456, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto in violation of section 458.331(1)(nn), Florida Statutes (2007), as Petitioner alleges in the Third Amended Administrative Complaint; if so, whether (and what) disciplinary measures should be imposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order: Finding that Paul M. Goldberg, M.D., violated sections 458.331(1)(g) and (nn), Florida Statutes, as charged in Counts IV and V of the Complaint; Dismissing Counts I-III of the Complaint; Imposing $20,000 in administrative fines; issuing a reprimand against Dr. Goldberg's medical license; requiring Dr. Goldberg to complete the "Laws and Rules" Course; suspending Dr. Goldberg's medical license until such time as Dr. Goldberg undergoes a "UF CARES" evaluation; and placing Dr. Goldberg's license on probation for three years under indirect supervision with 100 percent chart review of cosmetic surgery patients and 25 percent chart review of all other patients. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 2015.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the provider, Medilab, was overpaid for medicaid claims as alleged in the letter dated November 3, 1993.
Findings Of Fact The Agency is the state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid program. At all times material to this case, Medilab was a medicaid provider. Medilab enrolled as a physician group provider on or about October 2, 1991. Medilab was not enrolled with the Florida Medicaid program as a diagnostic lab. At all times material to this case, Medilab was owned and operated by Roberto Rodriguez and Jorge Nunez. Mr. Rodriguez handled the administrative duties for Medilab while Mr. Nunez operated the diagnostic portion of the business. Medilab operated several machines for diagnostic evaluations as ordered by a physician. Such machines produced documentation which was then evaluated by another physician. Dr. Carmouze did not perform the service nor interpret the diagnostic results. When Medilab applied for a provider number to enroll in the Medicaid program it represented that services were to be provided by Dr. Arnoldo Carmouze. It was further represented that Dr. Carmouze would treat or supervise treatment of patients on behalf of the Medilab "group." On or about January 11, 1992, Medilab received its group provider number along with a copy of the Medicaid Physician Provider Handbook. Medilab was notified that it could begin billing for services beginning October 2, 1991. Subsequently, the Agency performed an audit of Medilab for the period October 2, 1991 through August 31, 1992. Li-Hsiang Wu, a computer systems project analyst employed by the Agency, generated a random sample of Medicaid recipients by using a computer program to calculate the total number of Medicaid recipients for which claims were submitted during the audit period. Then Medilab's provider number and the dates of the audit were used to generate the total number of Medicaid recipients for whom claims were submitted by Medilab for the audit period. Once the total number of recipients was identified, Ms. Wu generated a list of forty-three recipient numbers which were selected by the computer from the total number claimed by Medilab for the period searched. Mr. Allen then requested and obtained from Medilab the medical records for the same forty-three randomly selected Medicaid recipients. The medical records were first reviewed by Phyllis Stiver, the Agency's registered nurse consultant. Once Ms. Stiver completed her initial review, Mr. Allen requested additional records from Medilab. Specifically, documentation for the office visit and records that established the necessity for the tests performed by Medilab were requested for each of the forty-three recipients. Medilab subsequently submitted additional records to the Agency which were also reviewed by Ms. Stiver. Ms. Stiver determined that based upon her review of the forty-three records, Medilab had violated Medicaid rules and policy as follows: Medilab failed to have all of the medical records signed by a physician and dated; and Medilab failed to document in the medical records to show that certain diagnostic tests were performed. After Ms. Stiver completed her review of the records, Dr. Sullenberger reviewed each of Medilab's medical records for the forty-three patients. Dr. Sullenberger determined, and it is found, that the majority of the tests performed by Medilab were not medically necessary based upon the symptoms documented for each patient, the prior patient histories established by the records, and the absence of other, less expensive testing that would normally be utilized to determine a medical condition. Virtually all of the patient records reviewed recited the same medical complaints: chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitation, numbness or tingling in extremities, and dizziness. Only five of the forty-three patients were over 49 years of age. The ages of the majority of the forty-three were under 50. That age group is rarely afflicted by the types of medical conditions which the Medilab equipment was used to detect. The symptoms and medical histories recited in the medical records did not justify the tests performed by Medilab for the following patients (recipients identified in this record as numbers 1 through 43): 1, 2, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, and 41. With the exception of the electrocardiogram, the symptoms and medical histories recited in the medical records did not justify the tests performed by Medilab for the following patients (recipients identified in this record as numbers 1 through 43): 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 36, 39, 40, 42, and 43. With regard to recipient 8, except for the electrocardiogram and the abdominal ultrasound, the tests performed by Medilab were medically unnecessary. With regard to recipient 10, except for the electrocardiogram and the Doppler echocardiogram, the tests performed by Medilab were medically unnecessary. With regard to recipient 14, except for the electrocardiogram and the echocardiogram, the tests performed by Medilab were medically unnecessary. With regard to recipient 28, except for the mammogram, the tests performed by Medilab were medically unnecessary. None of the services or testing performed by Medilab were supervised by a physician. Two physicians, Dr. Pozo and Dr. Pereira, radiologists, read the diagnostic results but were not on site to perform or supervise the tests on a daily basis. Dr. Pozo did not supervise the services that were provided at Medilab. Dr. Pereira, who is deceased and whose testimony was not available, did not supervise the services that were provided at Medilab. According to Mr. Nunez, Dr. Pereira had someone from his office courier the tests results and his interpretations to and from the Medilab facility. Dr. Pereira may have visited the facility on occasion but was not there during its full hours of operation. Dr. Carmouze, the treating physician and representative for Medilab's physician group, did not supervise the services at Medilab. Dr. Carmouze treated over 95 percent of the total patients referred to Medilab yet Dr. Carmouze never billed the Medicaid program for the patients' office visits. For the audit period, of the 493 different patients Medilab billed Medicaid for, Dr. Carmouze is the only treating physician identified by the records. The Medicaid Physician's Handbook, supplied to Medilab at the time of its enrollment, specified that to be reimbursable the services performed by a physician group provider had to be medically necessary and supervised by a physician. The Medicaid Provider Agreement required Medilab to keep complete and accurate medical and fiscal records that fully justify and disclose the extent of the services rendered for five years. All tests performed by Medilab were documented with a physician's order for same. Medilab submitted for review all medical and fiscal records it maintained in its attempt to fully justify and disclose the extent of the services it rendered.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration, Medicaid Program Integrity Office, issue a final order charging Medilab for the full amounts paid for the audit period as the services rendered were not supervised by a physician and were, therefore, not "physician services." Additionally, the Agency should impose an administrative fine in an amount not to exceed $5,000.00. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 1st day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 1st day of March 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-0096 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 6, and 12 are accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected as not supported by the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 7 is accepted as to the general statement but is rejected as to the amount claimed. Paragraph 8 is rejected as a mischaracterization of testimony; it is accepted Dr. Sullenberger, on further reflection and in an effort to be consistent, gave Medilab the benefit of doubt and modified disallowed items. Paragraph 9 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 10 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 11 is rejected as contrary to weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 13 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant. That Dr. Carmouze never charged for the alleged office visits that generated the referral for tests was the relevant fact. Paragraph 15 is accurate but is irrelevant in light of the stipulation. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 36, 39, 41, 43, 46, 48, 49, 50, 52, and 53 are accepted. Paragraphs 37, 38, 40, 42, and 47 are rejected as argument. Paragraph 44 is rejected as hearsay not supported by direct evidence. Paragraph 45 is rejected as not supported by the weight of credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 51, the first sentence is accepted; the remainder rejected as not supported by the weight of credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Heidi E. Garwood Agency for Health Care Administration 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building B, Room 271 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Monte K. Rassner Rassner, Rassner, Kramer & Gold, P.A. 7000 Southwest 62nd Avenue, Suite PH-B South Miami, Florida 33143 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Tom Wallace, Assistant Director Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
