The Issue Whether the Petitioner was entitled to enrollment for his son in the State of Florida Group Health Self Insurance Plan for the January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2008, plan year and, if so, whether he is entitled to reimbursement of $543 for student health insurance coverage that was added to his son's college tuition bill.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Bashere Bchara, has been employed by the Florida Department of Transportation for the past 9 years including the period October 2007 through December 2008. He is and was, on all relevant dates, entitled to state employees’ benefits, including participation for himself, his spouse, and eligible dependents in the State Group Health Insurance Program. On October 16, 2007, during the open enrollment period, the Petitioner accessed his state employee benefits from his computer to change his dental coverage, as he was required to do because of a change in State providers. Mr. Bchara believes that an error in the People First computer program, that is used to manage state human resources data, caused his son, Dani Bchara, to be removed from health insurance coverage as his dependent. He also said it was his first time using the computerized People First program to elect or change benefits. There is no dispute that Dani Bchara, who had been covered during the previous plan year, continued to be an eligible dependent. Mr. Bchara's witness, Michael Smith, testified that he too had problems trying to use People First to change dental plans. He found the People First computer screens confusing and disorganized. Dani Bchara was, at the time, a 22-year-old college student. As a part of his tuition and fees, Florida State University charged his account $543 for health insurance. In May 2008, after a claim for reimbursement for health expenses for Dani Bchara was rejected, Mr. Bchara, contacted plan insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield; plan contract administrator, People First; and then Respondent, the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance (Respondent or DSGI). DSGI has the responsibility for administering the insurance program. See § 110.123, Fla. Stat. (2008). After reviewing his complaint, Sandi Wade, a benefits administrator for DSGI, notified Mr. Bchara that his son was not covered by the state health plan. She also determined that he could not add his son, at that time, due to the absence any qualifying status change, as required by federal and state law. There is no allegation nor evidence of a qualifying status change that would allow the addition of Mr. Bchara's son to his coverage. Ms. Wade was not aware of any other reports of possible computer glitches of the type Mr. Bchara believes he experienced during the open enrollment period in October 2007. James West, a manager for People First testified that, during the enrollment period in October 2007, computer screens for health insurance and dental insurance were entirely different. Each was displayed only after the appropriate tab was chosen. In addition, Mr. West noted that a "summary last step" had to be chosen and the final summary screen allowed employees to view changes from all prior screens before selecting the option to "complete enrollment." Mr. West examined logs of computer transactions on October 16, 2007. The logs showed that Mr. Bchara, using his People First identification number changed his health insurance by deleting coverage for his son. Mr. West reviewed correspondence logs that indicated that Mr. Bchara was sent a notice dated October 27, 2007, confirming the changes he had made to his benefits. The notice was sent from the Jacksonville service center of Convergys, the contract operator of the People First system, to an address that Mr. Bchara confirmed was correct. Mr. Bchara testified that he did not receive the letter. Mr. West testified that the letter was not returned, as confirmed by an electronic tracking system for mail. Scott Thompson, Director of Application Development for Convergys, testified that his records also show every time Mr. Bchara logged into the People First system using his identification number and password. The logs also show that his health plan was changed when he accessed the system on October 16, 2007. Based on the evidence in the computer records and logs that Mr. Bchara, albeit unintentionally, deleted coverage for his son in the group health insurance program, there is insufficient evidence of computer or human error attributable to Respondent. In the absence of sufficient evidence of any errors by DSIG or its agents, or any evidence of a qualifying status change in Mr. Bchara's employment or his family, DSIG correctly rejected the request for retroactive enrollment of his son in the state group health insurance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner, Bashere Bchara, retroactive health insurance coverage for an additional dependent under the state plan for the 2008 plan year. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 16th day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonja P. Matthews, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Bashere Bchara 10178 Southwest 53rd Court Cooper City, Florida 33328 John Brenneis, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact In December of 1985, the Petitioner and his dependents were covered by the State Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan. Robert S. Coughlin, the Petitioner's nineteen-year-old dependent, was hospitalized in an out-of-state hospital from December 24, 1985, to December 26, 1985. The total expense for the hospitalization was $935.00. A claim for insurance benefits to cover the expense was received by the Insurance Plan administrator on August 10, 1987. The claim was filed by the hospital on behalf of the insured dependent, Robert S. Coughlin. The administrator for the Respondent refused to pay the claim as it was not submitted within the sixteen-month period set forth in the contract of insurance. The contract, which is referred to as the benefit document, contains a policy exclusion which provides that no payment shall be made under the Plan for claims made after the expiration of the sixteen-month time limit which begins to run from the date medical expenses are incurred. The hospital did not timely file the claim because a mix-up had occurred during the hospital admission concerning the patient's insurance coverage. The dependent, Robert S. Coughlin, was unconscious during his emergency out-of-state hospital admission. Either the hospital personnel or the dependent's friends mistakenly used the information on another insurance card located in the patient's wallet as the applicable insurance. As the hospital directly filed the claim with the first insurance company, processing delays within the first company caused the hospital to miss the filing deadline for the actual insurance benefits. The Petitioner, Charles R. Coughlin, was not made aware of the situation until after the sixteen-month dime period had expired, and the claim for payment had been refused by the Respondent.
The Issue Whether the Department properly excluded coverage for care provided to Petitioner’s child.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Susan Carswell, was employed by the State of Florida, Department of Labor and Employment Statistics, from June 1994 until December 1998. She enrolled herself and her children in the State Group Health Insurance Plan (State Plan). The State Plan, Section XXVIII, paragraph A, provides as follows: 18. 'Condition' shall mean any disease, illness, injury, accident, bodily dysfunction, pregnancy, drug addiction, alcoholism, or mental or nervous disorder. * * * 21. 'Covered Services and Supplies' shall mean those health care services, treatments, therapies, devices, procedures, techniques, equipment, supplies, products, remedies, for which expenses are covered under the Benefit Document. (emphasis supplied) * * * 23. 'Custodial Care' means care which does not require Skilled Nursing Care or rehabilitation services and is designed solely to assist the Participant with the activities of daily living, such as: help in walking, getting in and out of bed, bathing, dressing, eating, and taking medicine. (emphasis supplied) * * * 40. 'Illness' means physical sickness or disease, pregnancy, bodily injury, or congenital anomaly. * * * 49. 'Medically Necessary' means the service received required to identify or treat the illness, injury, or mental or nervous disorder which a physician has diagnosed or reasonably suspects. The service must (1) be consistent with the symptom [sic], diagnosis and treatment of the patient’s condition, (2) be in accordance with standards of good medical practice, (3) be required for reasons other than convenience of the patient or his/her physician, (4) be approved by the appropriate medical body or board for the illness or injury in question, and (5) be the most appropriate, efficient and economical medical supply, service, or level of care which can be safely provided. * * * 56. 'Outpatient' means a patient who is receiving medically necessary care or treatment ordered by a physician and who is not an inpatient. * * * 80. 'Skilled Nursing Care' means care which is furnished by, or under the direct supervision of, licensed Registered Nurses (under the general direction of the physician) to achieve the medically desired result and to ensure the Participant’s safety. Paragraph C of the State Plan provides for covered medical and surgical services and supplies as follows: Seventy percent(70) of the Allowance for Medically Necessary Inpatient/Outpatient services and supplies provided to a Participant by a Non-Network Provider for the treatment of the Participant as a result of a covered accident, illness. (emphasis supplied) * * * Ninety percent (90) of the Allowed Amount for Medically Necessary Inpatient/Outpatient services and supplies provided to a Participant by a Network Provider for the treatment of the Participant as a result of a covered accident, illness. (emphasis supplied) Paragraph D of the State Plan provides for other covered services as follows: The Plan shall pay eighty percent (80) of the Allowed Amount or Allowance, whichever is applicable, for the following Medically Necessary Services when ordered by a physician for the treatment of the Participant as a result of a covered accident, illness . . . . Nursing care by a Registered Nurse or Licensed Practical Nurse. Paragraph G of the State Plan provides for exclusions to covered services and supplies as follows: The following are not Covered Services and Supplies under the Plan. 4. Any services and supplies which are not medically necessary. * * * 14. Any services in connection with Custodial Care or preventive care; immunizations or except those in accordance with Child Health Supervision Services or when necessary as a result of an accident. The term "treatment" is not defined in the State Plan. Veronica Carswell is the daughter of Petitioner. She was born on May 5, 1983. Veronica was born healthy, but due to problems resulting from an illness that hospitalized her when she was a week old, she is severely disabled. Her current state is due either to her illness or an accident. She has cerebral palsy, seizure disorder, and vision problems. She is a spastic quadriplegic, severely brain damaged and profoundly mentally retarded. Her body is severely dysfunctional. She has a tracheotomy tube for breathing and a gastrostomy tube for feeding. Veronica is totally dependant on other people for her care. From 1987 to 1998, Veronica resided in a specialty care residential hospital facility in New York. In 1998, Petitioner moved her daughter to Florida so that she could reside at home. In preparation for the move, Petitioner advertised for and hired licensed practical nurses (LPNs) to provide her daughter with the care she needed on a 24-hour basis. Petitioner hired LPN’s because she had discovered it was considerably cheaper to hire an LPN than pay for the services of a lesser qualified home health care aid through a licensed home health care agency. The LPNs provided care to Veronica according to a Care Plan devised by Kathleen Hamilton, LPN, and approved by Dr. Gary Soud, Veronica’s physician. The Care Plan provides for medically necessary treatment or management of Veronica’s current condition and bodily dysfunction. The care required in the plan is recognized as appropriate care and treatment by experts in the field and is not being given for purposes of convenience. Nurse Hamilton is also one of the LPNs who care for Veronica and has provided health care services to Veronica for one year. Other LPNs provide services to Veronica similar to those provided by Nurse Hamilton. The services provided by the LPNs hired by Petitioner include repositioning of Veronica periodically throughout the day, feeding through the gastric tube, checking residual fluid in Veronica’s stomach with a syringe, administering medication through the gastric tube, misting to keep secretions moist, suctioning of the tracheotomy tube, changing the tracheotomy tube ties, replacing the tracheotomy tube every 3 weeks, assessing Veronica’s cardiopulmonary status at least every eight hours and continuously throughout her care, and monitoring Veronica’s oxygen saturation every four hours or as needed by her condition at the time. The attention Veronica requires in order to maintain her breathing is fairly constant, to the point that when Nurse Hamilton testified, she had to sit or stand beside Veronica to administer care, primarily suctioning, to her. Although seizures have not been a problem, Veronica still requires monitoring by a nurse for small seizures, which while not deadly, could adversely affect Veronica’s condition. Veronica’s condition is fragile and without constant care she can quickly deteriorate. Arguably a lay person with proper training could perform the activities involving the gastric tube and repositioning. However, the evidence did not show that Petitioner is adequately trained or able to perform the tasks required for proper use of the gastric tube or repositioning. Moreover, the evidence did not show that such training was available. Likewise, the evidence did not show that a trained lay person was available to perform the care required in relation to the gastric tube or repositioning or that such a person would be more efficient or economical to hire. In fact, the evidence showed that a trained nurse's aide would be more expensive than hiring an LPN to perform the same tasks. Therefore, it would seem appropriate that an LPN perform these services. The same economic analysis applies to all aspects of Veronica’s Care Plan. Additionally the evidence was clear that the care required which involves the gastric tube is not simply care or treatment given for the sole purpose of assisting Veronica with her activities of daily living. Veronica’s condition necessitates the use of special expertise to feed her because she does not feed normally. In order to maintain her status to prevent her deterioration and even death and to prevent infection, which are recognized medical goals, she must receive additional care such as checking her stomach fluids, and cleaning and maintenance of the gastric tube. The amount she is fed must be carefully monitored. The actual feeding of Veronica is a minimum part of the care which is required because she has a gastric tube. The greater activities are the care functions performed for the purpose of maintaining her current status and preventing infection. Since the care and treatment Veronica receives involving the gastric tube are not designed for the sole purpose of assisting Veronica to eat, they do not fall within the exclusion for custodial activities. Similarly, Veronica’s care concerning repositioning is not for the sole purpose of assisting Veronica in her activities of daily living. Repositioning maintains Veronica’s circulation and must be done in order to maintain her current health status and current level of atrophy. Repositioning also prevents the formation of pressure sores. Therefore, because repositioning has multiple medical purposes such care does not fall under the custodial care exclusion. Veronica cannot breathe without a tracheotomy tube. All of the care given to Veronica which involve the tracheotomy tube are medically necessary to maintain her current medical state and to maintain an appropriate level of oxygen in Veronica’s blood and tissues. The same is true of the John Bunn mist administered to Veronica to keep her secretions moist so that she can cough them up or have them suctioned out of her air passageway. Blockage of the air passageways is a real danger with Veronica. The tube coming out is a danger to Veronica. Without these treatments or procedures Veronica’s oxygen level would drop and she would deteriorate. As indicated earlier, the tracheotomy care is constant. Because her breathing is so impaired, Veronica needs to be monitored constantly in addition to the cardiopulmonary assessment done every eight hours and oxygen saturation check done two times per shift. Such monitoring is a nursing assessment requiring special training which is best done by a nurse. Nothing involving the tracheotomy is done for the sole purpose of aiding with Veronica’s activities of daily living. Therefore the custodial exclusion does not apply. Except for the replacement of the tracheotomy tube every month, none of the care or treatment rendered to Veronica is required to be performed by a registered nurse (RN) or under the supervision of a RN. However, some of the care and treatment requires nursing expertise of at least the training of an LPN. However, all of the care can be part of a nurse's function and, at least in this case, is better supplied by a nurse, given Veronica’s fragile condition, level of impairment and the fact that the care is provided most efficiently and economically by an LPN. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to payment of her claim under the State Plan.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner’s claim be paid. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 29th day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Lamar Winegeart III, Esquire 219 Newman Street, 4th Floor Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Cindy Horne, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Thomas D. McGurk, Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether the surgery to correct complications from non- covered cosmetic surgery are covered under the State of Florida self-insured health plan?
Findings Of Fact Sharon Lett, Petitioner, was initially hired by the State of Florida on October 1, 1986, and began participating in the State's self-insured health plan known as the State Employees' Preferred Provider Organization Plan, or State PPO Plan. Pre-existing conditions were covered after 365 days. In June 1985, Lett had bilateral silicone breast implants placed under the pectoral muscles. This occurred before she was covered under any of the state-sponsored health insurance plans. The implant surgery was performed for purely cosmetic reasons. Lett continued to work for the State until her retirement and was covered under the State's health insurance plan. Upon her retirement she continued her coverage under the State PPO Plan. In 1997, while covered by the plan, Lett sought medical intervention for problems related to the implants. She had concerns about the implants leaking and there were indications in the form of "lumps" and x-ray images which indicated the implants were leaking. There are some clinical studies which indicate that leaking implants are a potential health problem. The "lumps" and leakage decrease the ability to properly diagnose breast cancer. For patients who have a higher risk for breast cancer, these difficulties in diagnosis place the implanted patients at greater risk. Lett is diagnosed as being at greater risk for breast cancer. Both of her implants have leaked. Lett sought removal of the implants beginning in 1997. The State's PPO Plan has denied approval of the surgical procedure to remove the implants because the implant surgery was originally for cosmetic purposes. The latest denial was by letter dated September 27, 2002. The Division of State Group Insurance (DSGI) is responsible for the management of the State's group insurance programs, to include the PPO Plan. The State's PPO Plan is administered under contract by Florida Blue Cross and Blue Shield. In support of her latest request for payment for the surgery to remove the implants, Lett provided DSGI the following: Medical Report of Marguerite Barnett, M.D., (Respondent's Exhibit 4), dated May 23, 2002. Clinical Record Progress Notes by Frank B. Vasey, M.D., for visit on April 15, 2002. Lett also provided a diagnostic report by Mary E. Swain, M.D., dated June 1, 2000. The DSGI agrees that the reports of Drs. Barnett and Vasey accurately describe Petitioner's medical condition and accurately identify the etiology of the condition that necessitates the surgery Petitioner seeks. At the time Lett initially enrolled in the State PPO Plan, the benefits document in effect was State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Benefit Document, as Amended on October 1, 1986. Section VII, Exclusions, of the 1986 Benefits Document provides: Services for cosmetic surgery or treatment unless the result of a covered accident as provided in Subsection VIII.A. However, cosmetic surgery is a covered service if it is: in connection with the correction of a congenital anomaly for an eligible dependent born while family coverage is in force and performed while the Plan is in force, a medically necessary procedure in the correction of an abnormal bodily function, or for reconstruction to an area of the body which has been altered by the treatment of a disease, provided such alteration occurred while the insured was covered under the Plan. Section VIII, Limitations, of the 1986 Benefits Document provides: The following limitations shall apply under the Plan: A. Cosmetic surgery or treatment necessary for the repair or alleviation of damage to an insured is covered by the Plan if such surgery or treatment is the result of an accident sustained while the insured is covered under the Plan and actually performed while the Plan is in force, except as provided under Section XIII and XIV of this Benefit Document. Section XIII deals with termination of an insured's coverage and is not applicable here. Section XIV deals with termination of the program and is not applicable here. At the time Lett requested approval for the surgery to remove the implants, the benefits document in effect was State Employees' PPO Plan Group Health Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefit Document effective January 1, 2000 (hereafter, 2000 Benefits Document). The 2000 Benefits Document states regarding services not covered by the plan that cosmetic surgery is not covered unless it is: A result of a covered accident if the accident happens and the surgery or treatment is performed while the person is covered by this health insurance plan, For correction of a congenital anomaly for an eligible dependent born while the employee has family coverage and performed while the dependent is covered by this health insurance plan, A medically necessary procedure to correct an abnormal bodily function, For reconstruction to an area of the body that has been altered by the treatment of a disease, provided the alteration occurred while the person was covered by this health insurance plan, For breast reconstructive surgery and the prosthetic devices related to a mastectomy. "Mastectomy" means the removal of all or part of the breast for medically necessary reasons as determined by a licensed physician, and "breast reconstructive surgery" means surgery to reestablish symmetry between the two breast, . . . Complications resulting from non-covered services, except complications of pregnancy defined on pages 49-50, are excluded from coverage generally. See 2000 Benefit Document, page 31, paragraph 53. It is noted that the 1986 Benefit Document does not have a provision similar to that cited in paragraph 21, above. Under the 1986 Benefit Document, cosmetic surgery would not have been covered, but surgery necessary to address complications from non-covered services was not limited or excluded. The problems suffered by Lett did not arise until after the time limit excluding pre-existing conditions had expired or run.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's Petition be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 27th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Lett 240 Starmount Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 William Simon, Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Alberto Dominguez, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to reimbursement under the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan for $300.00 she spent for chiropractic treatment between 11/16/83 and 01/23/84?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is and has been an employee of the State of Florida for a number of years. In February of 1974, she subscribed to the general group health insurance plan offered by the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan under contract no. 264158282. Blue Cross of Florida Inc. and Blue Shield of Florida Inc. are the designated claims agent/administrator for the general plan and its options/addenda. Petitioner was first treated by Dr. Steven M. Willis, D.C., in January, 1983. She did not initially present to Dr. Willis, a chiropractor, for trauma but for symptoms of chronic sciatica and leg pain. She was treated the remainder of that month for sciatica but did not subscribe to the state group health plan until February 1, 1983. Although her application for chiropractic coverage was not offered or admitted in evidence, Petitioner testified that she answered all questions thereon and Respondent did not affirmatively raise any issues of lack of coverage due to effective date of coverage, or due to addendum changes, or due to concealment or due to fraud and on the basis of Petitioner's exhibits as a whole, I find that she acquired chiropractic coverage during a period of open enrollment and that from February 1, 1983 on, the plan took her as it found her and provided complete chiropractic coverage. In dispute in this cause are a series of chiropractic treatments and charges incurred by the Petitioner with Dr. Willis. Claims for the following dates of treatment were made in the name of a health care provider, Robert G. Hildreth, D.C." Dr. Hildreth made the formal claims upon Petitioner's assignment to the Centerville Road Chiropractic Clinic in which both chiropractors are partners. There is no dispute that the following treatments were rendered by Dr. Willis and properly assigned for payment by Petitioner: 11/16/83 - $20.00 12/21/03 - $6.44 11/22/83 - $20.00 12/29/83 - $20.00 11/28/83 - $20.00 01/03/84 - $20.00 12/05/83 - $20.00 01/06/84 - $20.00 12/09/83 - $20.00 01/13/84 - $20.00 12/14/83 - $20.00 01/17/84 - $20.00 12/19/83 - $20.00 01/19/84 - $20.00 12/21/83 - $20.00 01/23/84 - $20.00 Claims for some or all of these treatments/amounts were submitted by the chiropractors a number of times and rejected by Blue Cross/Blue Shield as the state administrator a number of times. Petitioner conceded at hearing that the 12/21/83 charge in the amount of $6.44 was properly rejected for lack of coverage of supplies costs. The first rejection of some of the other charges was for failure of the doctors' bookkeeper to include the correct diagnosis and procedure codes on the claims forms. This was corrected and resubmitted and thereafter all of the charges for treatment were rejected (either together or piecemeal) for payment upon grounds that 26 visits had already been paid for and that after the maximum number of 26 visits has been paid the state plan pays for no more chiropractic visits. Blue Cross/Blue Shield resumed paying for chiropractic treatment for the chronic back and leg problems on 1/27/84. In light of Blue Cross/Blue Shield's earlier response, Petitioner and Dr. Willis concluded that this must be because a new year was beginning and a new 26 visits would be paid annually. However, Respondent stipulated at hearing, that although private Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance plans may have such a maximum, the state plan has no such 26 visits annual maximum. Petitioner and Dr. Willis questioned Blue Cross/Blue Shield about its 26 visit annual maximum reason for rejection, so Blue Cross/Blue Shield sent a "review sheet" asking Dr. Willis to justify his diagnosis and treatment. His justification was supplied on the review sheet (R-1) dated February 27, 1984. After review, Blue Cross/Blue Shield advised Petitioner and Dr. Willis that payment for these treatments had been determined not to be "medically necessary" by its chiropractic board of review. Petitioner responded with a timely request for Section 120.57(1) hearing. Petitioner eventually paid for the treatments in question out of her own pocket. In support of her position that her treatments (all of which may be generically described as "spine adjustments") are "medically necessary, Petitioner offered the testimony of Dr. Willis, the treating chiropractor. In addition to relating facts, I find Dr. Willis by education, training, and experience is capable of giving expert opinions in the field of chiropractic medicine. Dr. Willis testified that he first saw Petitioner on 1/12/83 for sciatic pain in both legs. After taking a complete history revealing previous orthopedic treatment locally with Dr. Haney and previous podiatric treatment locally with Dr. Merritt, treatment with another doctor in Orlando and with another podiatrist in Texas, Dr. Willis initially diagnosed acute lumbosacral neuralgia and treated Petitioner 3 times per week for 6 weeks. He opined that Petitioner's case was unusual in that Petitioner wanted to remain as athletically active as possible, including but not limited to running 10-50 miles per week and participating in a number of sports. Dr. Willis subsequently revised his diagnosis to make it bilateral sacrilization at the L-5/S-1 vertebrae, anterior gravitational syndrome and hyperimbrication at the L4/L5 vertebrae. Put into laymen's terms, Petitioner's L-4 / L-5 vertebrae do not have full range of motion and this results in Petitioner's low back pain at that level. In Dr. Willis' opinion, due to a congenital abnormality, in Petitioner, her condition is not fully correctable. On 4/5/83, Petitioner came to Dr. Willis with back pain which he diagnosed as the result of a trauma occurring as a result of weight lifting Petitioner had done on 4/4/83, and subsequently she suffered a trauma to the unstable back while windsurfing. On 10/28/83, Petitioner reported pain in the medial aspect of her left foot which Dr. Willis diagnosed as tendonitis. In January, 1984 he referred her to Dr. Merritt, a local podiatrist for a severe left shin/ankle/ metatarsal problem. These various diagnoses, treatments, and referrals, are important to the instant issue involving spine adjustment treatments between 11/16/83 and 01/23/84 for chronic back pain at L-4 through S- 1 because they serve to illustrate diagnosis and treatment differences between trauma situations and continuing treatment for exacerbations of the chronic back and foot/leg problems for which cost of treatment reimbursement is sought. "Apparently, however, there was no problem with payment of any fees charged until 11/16/83 (the twenty-seventh visit in 1983), and clearly payments resumed as soon as the calendar rolled over to 1984. Dr. Willis further diagnosed concluded that there is pedal instability of Petitioner's foot resulting in ankle and shin problems and that these problems in turn create an imbalance; the imbalance in turn causes great wear and tear in the lumbar (low back) region. The low back is again exacerbated by increased periods of activity. During these periods of exacerbation he treats Petitioner's chronic back pain with spine adjustments. There may be long periods between exacerbations when treatments are not necessary. It is for the periods of exacerbation that the treatments in question were administered and for which Petitioner seeks reimbursement. Although Dr. Willis conceded on cross-examination that frequency of treatment in a case like Petitioner's is a matter of chiropractic judgment and also that opinions among health care providers and especially chiropractors may differ as to whether the treatments he has provided to Petitioner are medically necessary or not, he states emphatically that in his professional opinion they are medically necessary. Upon consideration of all the testimony and evidence, I find the treatments between 11/16/83 and 01/23/84 to be remedial as opposed to merely palliative in nature due to the considerable instability of both the back and foot which continued to be exacerbated by Petitioner's particular lifestyle. Both Petitioner and her doctor testified that chiropractic treatment sessions in her case have always included preventive counselling as well as therapeutic treatment. The goal of such counselling is to substitute non-exacerbating or less-exacerbating recreational activities for those Petitioner would otherwise pursue (i.e. weight training and swimming in place of running and wind surfing).
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order finding Petitioner's treatments in question "medically necessary and ordering the plan administrator (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) to reimburse her $300.00 therefor (amount claimed less the admittedly "not covered" $6.44 supplies charge on 12/21/83.). DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 2nd day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Dara Houliston 2308 Notley Court Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gilda Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Savanah McGriff was, until her death, a resident of Gadsden County. The parties have stipulated that on November 1, 1977 she was admitted to the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital in an emergency medical condition, and that the treatment performed by the hospital was of an emergency nature. The parties have further stipulated that the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital is a regional referral hospital within the meaning of 154.304(4), Florida Statutes (1977). Savanah McGriff was admitted to the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital on November 1, 1977. She died on November 3, 1977 while she was still a patient at the hospital. The total bill for services was $683.85. The hospital submitted a bill to Gadsden County in the amount of $253.58 for the services, which is the amount permitted to be billed in accordance with the Florida Health Care Responsibility Act. Gadsden County has refused to pay the bill, contending that the patient was not indigent within the meaning of the Act. The bill has not been otherwise paid. Savanah McGriff was married to Charlie Anderson. During the six months preceding the hospitalization of Savanah McGriff, she and her husband resided together in their home. During that period Mr. Anderson received a monthly disability check of $74.70, and Social Security benefits in the amount of $116.10. Ms. McGriff had received Veterans benefits in the amount of $50.40. They had no other income. Their average monthly income for the six months prior to the hospitalization was thus $241.20.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to change from individual to family coverage under the State of Florida Employees' Group Insurance Plan retroactively to May 1, 1990.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida makes available to its employees several group insurance programs. In the area of health insurance, employees may choose to participate in the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan, or they may enroll in a number of different HMOs depending upon the county in which each employee resides. The State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan (hereinafter "the Plan") is a plan of self insurance established by the State, specifically described in a Benefit Document, and administered, under contract, by Blue Cross/Blue Shield (BCBS). In addition to the provisions of the Plan embodied in the Benefit Document, the self insurance plan is regulated by those rules contained in Chapter 22D, Florida Administrative Code. If an employee voluntarily chooses to participate in the Plan, the State as the employer contributes to the employee's costs by paying a portion of the premium for each employee. At the time that they commence employment with the State, employees may elect to participate in the Plan, in one of the HMOs approved for that particular geographical location, or may choose to not participate in any of the voluntary insurance programs offered through the State. Thereafter, employees may only join one of the insurance programs or switch between programs during an annual open enrollment period, unless an exception applies. An employee may purchase individual coverage, insuring only herself, or an employee may purchase family coverage, insuring that employee and one or more of her eligible dependents. During an open enrollment period, an employee may switch between individual coverage and family coverage for the following year. Under the State Plan, there is an exception to the restriction that employees may only change coverage and health plans during the open enrollment period. An employee having individual coverage may change to family coverage within 31 days after the date of acquisition of any eligible dependent. In that event, coverage for the eligible dependent does not relate back to the date of acquisition but rather will commence on some future date following the payment of the additional premium required for the additional family coverage. Similarly, an employee with only individual coverage may begin family coverage prior to acquiring eligible dependents and may obtain coverage for those dependents effective on the actual date the dependent is acquired by making application in time for a complete month's premium to be deducted prior to the first day of the month during which the dependent(s) will be acquired. At the time a new employee is hired and during open enrollment periods, all employees are given brochures with summary information regarding the various programs in which they are being given an opportunity to participate. Employees are advised, if they have questions regarding the Plan, to contact their personnel officer or the Division of State Employees' Insurance. After the employee makes a selection as to which health plan she wishes to participate in, if any, the employee will subsequently receive more detailed information about that plan. An employee choosing to participate in the Plan will subsequently receive a copy of the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Brochure. The first page of the Brochure specifically advises the employee that the brochure does not include all of the provisions, definitions, benefits, exclusions, and limitations of the Plan. The Brochure specifically advises the employee that it is a summary of the benefits and that any questions the employee might have should be presented to the employee's agency personnel offices or the Office of State Employees' Insurance, and provides that office's address and telephone numbers. The Plan itself is not distributed to each individual employee but rather is made available to each agency's personnel office for reference by any interested employee. Under the Plan, a woman with individual coverage is entitled to maternity or pregnancy benefits. As part of those benefits, charges for "well baby care," i.e., the charges for the nursery for the baby, are covered under the Plan as part of the maternity benefit of the mother. In well baby care, charges are not incurred by the baby as a separate patient. On the other hand, if a baby is ill and is admitted to the hospital as a separate patient, well baby care coverage does not apply, and family coverage must be in effect or the infant will be an uninsured individual under the Plan. The University of South Florida (USF) central personnel office is located on its main campus. The Health Sciences Center also maintains an adjunct personnel office for the convenience of employees of the Health Sciences Center at the adjunct personnel office where employees are able to gain assistance on personnel matters and obtain insurance benefit information. However, the employees' actual personnel files are located at the main campus personnel office. Robin Hudson is employed by the University of South Florida in the Health Sciences Center adjunct personnel office as a senior clerk. As part of her duties, Ms. Hudson counsels USF employees on their insurance benefits. Petitioner was employed by the University of South Florida Health Sciences Center on February 19, 1988, and chose to enroll in the State Employees' Group Health Program with family coverage effective March 1, 1988. Subsequently, Petitioner changed from family coverage to individual coverage effective July 1, 1988. Petitioner became pregnant in November 1988, with a due date of August 18, 1989, while she maintained individual coverage with the Plan. Sometime during November 1988, Petitioner telephoned the Health Science Center personnel office and spoke with "someone" regarding maternity coverage. Petitioner was advised that she was covered under the Plan. Also during this same time period, Petitioner referred to the Group Health Self Insurance Plan Brochure and could find no explanation of maternity or new born coverage. She did not seek additional information from the personnel office, nor did she contact the Division of State Employees' Insurance, at that time. The first communication involving Petitioner on the correspondence log maintained by Blue Cross and Blue Shield occurred on January 21, 1989, in a letter that was written to: Santiago and Arocho, M.D., P.A., Family Practice Physicians of Tampa, 5208 D. Fowler Avenue, #1, Tampa, Florida 33617-2152. The second correspondence occurred on May 9, 1989. It as an interpretation on lab work which had been performed on Petitioner. The third correspondence occurred on the same date when Blue Cross and Blue Shield advised provider 77566 was a preferred provided under Preferred Patient Care (PPC). On June 14, 1989, Petitioner enrolled with Tampa General Hospital. Petitioner was advised by hospital personnel that she had well and sick baby coverage at that time. This information was wrong. Sick baby coverage is not included for an employee with individual coverage. Petitioner delivered her daughter Lia at 32 weeks gestation by Cesarean Section on June 20, 1989, at Tampa General Hospital because her pregnancy was complicated by Severe Pre-Eclampsia with HELLP Syndrome. On the date Petitioner delivered her daughter, June 20, 1989, her husband called Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida inquiring if pre-admission certification was required for maternity. He was informed that it was not required for maternity. Due to the premature delivery, the child, Lia, was admitted as a patient and remained in the hospital for two weeks in order to gain weight. On February 17, 1989, Respondent's January 30, 1989 Insurance Memorandum 89-001 was received at USF Central Personnel Office. In Respondent's Memorandum 89-001, the Respondent reiterates the provisions of Rule 22K- 1.203(3), Florida Administrative Code, and advises personnel offices to advise "an insured pregnant employee . . . that she should change to family coverage shortly after the pregnancy is diagnosed so that insurance benefits will be available to the employee's child in the event of premature birth." The Personnel Office at USF printed the pertinent portions of Respondent's Memorandum 89-001 and distributed to each employee by placing an individually addressed copy of the Personnel Notes in each employee's mail box. Petitioner doesn't recall receiving the March 24 - April 3, 1989, edition of the news brochure; however, Petitioner asserts that she wouldn't have read it even if it was delivered, because the pertinent information was under the heading "Change in Appointment Status." The entire subject of the article under the heading Change in Appointment Status dealt with insurance benefits offered by Respondent and included a telephone extension number for interested employees to obtain additional information. Petitioner did not request any information of the maternity benefits offered to employees with single coverage from her personnel office or Respondent until after the birth of her daughter. Petitioner changed from single to family coverage, effective August 1, 1989, after consulting with Robin Hudson on July 21, 1989. The Plan has refused coverage for the hospitalization of Petitioner's child, Lia, the expenses of which totaled $9,178.95.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition which seeks payment for medical expenses incurred by Petitioner's newborn baby be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 17th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-5513 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Petitioner did not submit proposed findings Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (in part), 6, 7 (in substance), 8, 9, 10, 11. Rejected, as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraph 5 (in part). Rejected, as a conclusion of law: paragraph 12. COPIES FURNISHED: Marcela Gutierrez-Mayka 701 East River Drive Temple Terrace, FL 33617 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Aletta Shutes Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
The Issue Whether Florida Hospital Medical Center is entitled to reimbursement in the amount preliminarily determined by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, in a reimbursement dispute regarding bills submitted by Florida Hospital Medical Center to Macy’s Claims Services and Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company for medical services provided to two individuals involved in work-related accidents; and Whether Macy’s Claims Services and Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company properly adjusted those bills of Florida Hospital Medical Center in accordance with the requirements of Florida’s Workers’ Compensation law and applicable rules.
Findings Of Fact Florida Hospital is a full-service, not-for-profit hospital system located in Orlando, Florida, that operates a smaller satellite hospital in Winter Park, Florida. Florida Hospital is a “health care provider” within the meaning of Section 440.13(1)(h), Florida Statutes. Macy’s and Amerisure are “carriers” within the meaning of Sections 440.02(4) and 440.02(38), Florida Statutes. The Department has exclusive jurisdiction to resolve disputes between carriers and health care providers regarding payments for services rendered to injured workers, pursuant to Sections 440.13(7) and 440.13(11)(c), Florida Statutes. Qmedtrix is a medical bill review company.3/ Case No. 09-6871 R. P., an employee of Macy’s, slipped and fell at work on May 20, 2009, and presented to Florida Hospital Winter Park for evaluation and treatment where medical personnel documented vomiting, brain attack, and brain trauma. After evaluation and treatment, patient R. P. was diagnosed with a bruise to the head and released the same day. On September 16, 2009, Florida Hospital submitted its bill for services provided to R. P. totaling $5,547.20 to Macy’s for payment, utilizing Form DFS-F5-DWC-90, also known as UB-04 CMS-1450, identifying the charges billed for each line item by revenue code and HCPS or CPT codes. Macy’s forwarded the bill to its workers’ compensation medical bill review agent, Qmedtrix. Qmedtrix reviewed the bill by comparing the procedure codes and diagnosis codes reported by Florida Hospital with examples in the CPT book for billing of emergency department services. Florida Hospital reported ICD diagnosis code 920, which reads “contusion of face, scalp, or neck.” Use of this code means R. P. presented with a bruise or hematoma, but not a concussion. Florida Hospital also reported ICD diagnosis code 959.01 (“head injury, unspecified”) which also means that R. P. did not present with a concussion, loss of consciousness, or intracranial injuries. Florida Hospital’s bill included a charge of $2,417 with CPT code 99285 for emergency department services. The bill also included separate charges for a head CT, and various lab tests, drugs, and IV solutions. According to Mr. von Sydow, the bill was sent through Qmedtrix’s computer program for review, and was flagged for review by a physician. Mr. von Sydow further testified that one of Qmedtrix’s medical director’s suggested that the CPT code of 99285 be reduced. The medical director, who Mr. von Sydow said reviewed the bill, however, did not testify and no documentation of his recommendation was submitted at the final hearing. Qmedtrix determined that Florida Hospital should have used CPT code 99284 when billing for the emergency services rendered instead of CPT code 99285. Qmedtrix found that, while the hospital billed $2,417 with CPT code 99285, its usual charge for an emergency department visit billed with CPT code 99284 is $1,354. Macy’s paid Florida Hospital a total of $2,683.55, which amount included $1,010.24 for the emergency department visit based on [approximately] 75 percent of Florida Hospital’s usual charge for CPT code 99284. The payment was accompanied by an EOBR. The EOBR Macy’s (or its designated entity)4/ issued to Florida Hospital for services rendered to R. P. identifies the amount billed by Florida Hospital as to each line item in a column designated “Billed,” and has columns designated as “BR Red,” “PPO Red,” “Other Red,” and “Allowance,” each containing an amount for each line item in the “Billed” column. There is also a column entitled “Reason Code” which sets forth codes, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602(5)(o)3., that are supposed to explain the reason for adjustment of any line item.5/ The “reason code” set forth adjacent to the $2,417.00 billed by Florida Hospital for emergency department services is “82,” which means “Payment adjusted: payment modified pursuant to carrier charge analysis.” There is also another code, “P506” listed in the “Reason Code” column adjacent to the same line item, which, according to the key provided on the EOBR, means “[a]ny questions regarding this Qmedtrix review, please call (800)-833-1993.” “P506,” however, is not a “reason code” listed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 68L- 7.602(5)(o)3. The EOBR does not advise that the bill was adjusted because of a determination that Florida Hospital should have used CPT code 99284 when billing for the emergency services rendered instead of CPT code 99285 as originally billed. Upon receipt of the payment and the EOBR, Florida Hospital timely filed a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute with the Department pursuant to Section 440.13(7)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Rule 69L-31, contending that payment should be at 75 percent of its total charges, and citing the Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2006 Edition (Hospital Manual). Qmedtrix timely filed a response to Florida Hospital’s petition on behalf of Macy’s pursuant to Section 440.13(7)(b), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-31, asserting that correct payment should be determined based on, first, whether the hospital in fact billed its usual charge for the services and, second, whether the hospital’s charges are in line with the charges of other hospitals in the same community, citing One Beacon Insurance v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 958 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) for the proposition that “SB-50 amended section 440.13 . . . [revealing] legislative intent to eliminate calculation of a “usual and customary charge” based on the fees of any one provider in favor of a calculation based on average fees of all providers in a given geographic area.” Qmedtrix’s response on behalf of Macy’s also contended that “upcoding” and “unbundling” were additional grounds for adjustment or disallowance that were not identified on the EOBR. The response explained that “upcoding” refers to billing with a procedure code that exaggerates the complexity of the service actually provided; that CPT codes 99281 through 99285 describe emergency department services; that the CPT book includes examples of proper billing with these codes; that the hospital billed $2,417 with CPT code 99285; and that the CPT book describes an “emergency department visit for a healthy, young adult patient who sustained a blunt head injury with local swelling and bruising without subsequent confusion, loss of consciousness or memory deficit” as an example of proper billing with CPT code 99283. The response requested a determination by the Department that Macy’s payment equaled or exceeded the amount usual and customary for CPT code 99283. On November 13, 2009, the Department, through its Office of Medical Services (OMS) issued a determination (Determination in 09-6871) which found, in pertinent part: The petitioner asserts that services provided by Florida Hospital Medical Center to the above-referenced injured employee on May 20, 2009, were incorrectly reimbursed. Florida Hospital Medical Center billed $5,547.20 and the carrier reimbursed $2,683.55. The petition does not address a contract and does not reflect a contract discount in the calculation of requested reimbursement. The Carrier Response to Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute disputes the reasonableness of the hospital’s “usual and customary charges”, maintains the petitioners’ charges should be based on the average fee of other hospitals in the same geographic area, references a manual not incorporated by rule, and provides CPT codes that the respondent alleges are correct. There are no rules or regulations within Florida’s Workers’ Compensation program prohibiting a provider from separately billing for individual revenue codes. The carrier did not dispute that the charges listed on the Form DFS-F5-DWC-90 (UB-92) or the charges listed on the itemized statement did not conform to the hospital’s Charge Master. Nor did the carrier submit the hospital’s Charge Master in the response or assert that the carrier performed an audit of the Charge Master to verify the accuracy of the billed charges. Therefore, since no evidence was presented to dispute the accuracy of the Form DFS-F5-DWC-90 or the itemized statement as not being representative of the Charge Master, the OMS finds that the charges billed by the hospital are the hospital’s usual and customary charges. Rule 69L-7.602, F.A.C., stipulates the appropriate EOBR codes that must be utilized when explaining to the provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment. The EOBR submitted with the petition conforms to the EOBR code requirements of Rule 69L-7.602(5)(q), F.A.C. Only through an EOBR is the carrier to communicate to the health care provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment of the provider’s bill. Pursuant to s. 440.13(12), F.S., a three member panel was established to determine statewide reimbursement allowances for treatment and care of injured workers. Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., incorporates, by reference, the applicable reimbursement schedule created by the panel. Section 440.13(7)(c), F.S., requires the OMS to utilize this schedule in rendering its determination for this reimbursement dispute. No established authority exists to permit alternative schedules or other methodologies to be utilized for hospital reimbursement other than those adopted by Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., unless the provider and the carrier have entered into a mutually agreeable contract. Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., incorporates, by reference, the Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2006 Edition (Hospital Manual). Since the carrier failed to indicate any of the services are not medically necessary, the OMS determined proper reimbursement applying the above referenced reimbursement guidelines. Therefore, the OMS has determined that the carrier improperly adjusted reimbursement to Florida Medical Center for services rendered to the above- referenced injured employee on May 20, 2009. Based on the above analysis, the OMS has determined that correct reimbursement equals $4,160.40 ($5,547.20 x 75% [Hospital Manual]=$4,160.40). The carrier shall reimburse Florida Hospital Medical Center $4,160.40 for services rendered to the above-referenced employee; and submit proof of reimbursement of the amount determined by the OMS within thirty days of the date the Determination is received. . . . The difference between what Petitioner Macy’s paid Florida Hospital for services rendered to R. P., and the amount the Department determined that Petitioner Macy’s is required to pay for such services, equals $1,476.85. The Determination in 09-6871 did not directly address Macy’s allegation of the alleged billing error of “upcoding.” The Determination in 09-6871 provided a 21-day notice for request of an administrative hearing and, as noted in the Preliminary Statement above, Macy’s timely requested a hearing. Case No. 09-6872 J. L., an employee of Major League Aluminum, was injured in a work-related accident on the evening of May 3, 2009, and visited the emergency department of Florida Hospital Orlando. After evaluation and treatment, J. L. was diagnosed with a bruise to the knee and released the next morning. On September 23, 2009, Florida Hospital submitted its bill for services provided to J. L. totaling $2,851 to Amerisure, Major League Aluminum’s workers’ compensation insurer, for payment, utilizing Form DFS-F5-DWC-90, also known as UB-04 CMS-1450, identifying the charges billed for each line item by revenue code and HCPS or CPT codes. Amerisure forwarded the hospital bill to its medical bill review agent, Qmedtrix for review. Qmedtrix’s medical bill review in this case, as in the companion case, entailed comparing the procedure codes and diagnosis codes reported by the hospital with examples in the CPT book. The hospital reported ICD diagnosis code 924.11, which reads “contusion of . . . knee.” The hospital also reported ICD diagnosis codes 724.2 (“lumbago”), E888.1 (“fall on or from ladders or scaffolding”) and 959.7 (“injury, other and unspecified . . . knee, leg, ankle, and foot.”). Florida Hospital billed $1,354 with CPT code 9924 for emergency department services and also billed for X-rays and various drugs and IV solutions. Comparing procedure codes and diagnosis codes reported by the hospital with examples in the CPT book, Qmedtrix concluded that billing with CPT code 99284 was not appropriate, but that billing with CPT code 99282 was. Qmedtrix also found that, while the hospital billed $1,354 with CPT code 99284, the average charge in the community for a visit to the emergency department billed with CPT code 99282 is $721. Qmedtrix determined the “usual and customary charge” in the community from its own database compiled by entering all of particular hospital bills into Qmedtrix’s database, along with data from the American Hospital Directory. Qmedtrix derives the average charge in the community based upon zip codes of the hospitals. Amerisure paid Florida Hospital a total of $1,257.15, which amount included $524.70 for the emergency department visit codes based on 75 percent of what Qmedtrix determined to be the average charge in the community for CPT code 99282. The payment was accompanied by an EOBR. The EOBR Petitioner Amerisure (or its designated entity)6/ issued to Florida Hospital for services rendered to J. L. identifies the amount billed by Florida Hospital as to each line item in a column designated “Billed Charges,” and has columns designated as “FS/UCR Reductions,” “Audit Reductions,” “Network Reductions,” and “Allowance,” each containing an amount for each line item in the “Billed Charges” column. There is also a column entitled “Qualify Code” which sets forth reason codes that are supposed to explain the reason for adjustment of any line item.7/ The code set forth adjacent to the $1,354.00 billed by Florida Hospital for emergency department services is “82,” which means “Payment adjusted: payment modified pursuant to carrier charge analysis.” The EOBR does not advise that the bill was adjusted because of a determination that Florida Hospital should have used CPT code 99282 when billing for the emergency services rendered instead of CPT code 99284 as originally billed. Upon receipt of the payment and the EOBR, Florida Hospital timely filed a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute with the Department pursuant to Section 440.13(7)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-31, contending that payment should be at 75 percent of its total charges, and citing the Hospital Manual. Qmedtrix timely filed a response to Florida Hospital’s petition on behalf of Amerisure pursuant to Section 440.13(7)(b), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-31, asserting that correct payment should be determined based on, first, whether the hospital, in fact, billed its usual charge for the services and, second, whether the hospital’s charges are in line with the charges of other hospitals in the same community, citing One Beacon, supra. Qmedtrix’s response on behalf of Amerisure contended “upcoding” as an additional ground for adjustment or disallowance that was not identified on the EOBR. As in the companion case, the response explained “upcoding,” that CPT codes 99281 through 99285 describe emergency department services, and that the CPT book includes examples of proper billing with these codes. The response further stated that the hospital billed $1,354 with CPT code 99284, and that the CPT book describes an “emergency department visit for a patient with a minor traumatic injury of an extremity with localized pain, swelling, and bruising” as an example of proper billing with CPT code 99282. The response requested a determination by the Department that Amerisure’s payment equaled or exceeded the usual and customary charge for CPT code 99282. On October 20, 2009, the Department’s OMS issued a determination (Determination in 09-6872) which found, in pertinent part: The petitioner asserts that services provided by Florida Hospital Medical Center to the above-referenced injured employee on May 3, 2009, and May 4, 2009, were incorrectly reimbursed. Florida Hospital Medical Center billed $2,851.00 and the carrier reimbursed $1,257.15. The petition does not address a contract and does not reflect a contract discount in the calculation of requested reimbursement. The Carrier Response to Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute disputes the reasonableness of the hospital’s “usual and customary charges”, maintains the petitioners’ charges should be based on the average fee of other hospitals in the same geographic area, and references a manual not incorporated by rule. There are no rules or regulations within Florida’s Workers’ Compensation program prohibiting a provider from separately billing for individual revenue codes. Therefore, the charges, as billed by the hospital, did not constitute billing errors. The carrier did not dispute that the charges listed on the Form DFS-F5- DWC-90 (UB-92) or the charges listed on the itemized statement did not conform to the hospital’s Charge Master. Nor did the carrier submit the hospital’s Charge Master in the response or assert that the carrier performed an audit of the Charge Master to verify the accuracy of the billed charges. Therefore, since no evidence was presented to dispute the accuracy of the Form DFS-F5- DWC-90 or the itemized statement as not being representative of the Charge Master, the OMS finds that the charges billed by the hospital are the hospital’s usual and customary charges. Rule 69L-7.602, F.A.C., stipulates the appropriate EOBR codes that must be utilized when explaining to the provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment. The EOBR submitted with the petition conforms to the EOBR code requirements of Rule 69L-7.602(5)(q), F.A.C. Only through an EOBR is the carrier to communicate to the health care provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment of the provider’s bill. Pursuant to s. 440.13(12), F.S., a three member panel was established to determine statewide reimbursement allowances for treatment and care of injured workers. Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., incorporates, by reference, the applicable reimbursement schedule created by the panel. Section 440.13(7)(c), F.S., requires the OMS to utilize this schedule in rendering its determination for this reimbursement dispute. No established authority exists to permit alternative schedules or other methodologies to be utilized for hospital reimbursement other than those adopted by Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., unless the provider and the carrier have entered into a mutually agreeable contract. Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., incorporates, by reference, the Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2006 Edition (Hospital Manual). Since the carrier failed to indicate any of the services are not medically necessary, the OMS determined proper reimbursement applying the above referenced reimbursement guidelines. Therefore, the OMS has determined that the carrier improperly adjusted reimbursement to Florida Medical Center for services rendered to the above- referenced injured employee on May 3, 2009, and May 4, 2009. Based on the above analysis, the OMS has determined that correct reimbursement equals $2,138.25 ($2,851.00 x 75% [Hospital Manual]=$2,138.25). The carrier shall reimburse Florida Hospital Medical Center $2,138.25 for services rendered to the above-referenced employee; and submit proof of reimbursement of the amount determined by the OMS within thirty days of the date the Determination is received. . . . The difference between what Petitioner Amerisure paid Florida Hospital for services rendered to J. L. and the amount the Department determined that Petitioner Amerisure is required to pay for such services equals $881.10. The Determination in 09-6872 did not directly address Amerisure’s allegation of the alleged billing error of “upcoding.” The Determination in 09-6872 provided a 21-day notice for request of an administrative hearing and, as noted in the Preliminary Statement above, Amerisure timely requested a hearing. Alleged “Upcoding” for Emergency Department Services The Petitioners’ responses in both cases allege that Florida Hospital “upcoded” its bill for emergency department evaluation and management services. Neither EOBR submitted to Florida Hospital, however, reported alleged “upcoding” as an explanation for the Petitioners’ adjustment or disallowance of reimbursement. While the Dispute Determinations by the Department do not directly address the carrier’s allegation of the alleged billing error of “upcoding” raised in the Petitioners’ responses, they found that “Rule 69L-7.602, F.A.C., stipulates the appropriate EOBR codes that must be utilized when explaining to the provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment[, and that] [o]nly through an EOBR is the carrier to communicate to the health care provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment of the provider’s bill.” According to Mr. von Sydow, who was offered by Petitioners as an expert in billing, coding, reimbursement, and payment issues,8/ the “reason codes” that workers’ compensation carriers are to use pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602, do not mention “upcoding,” and therefore an EOBR could not be generated with a reason code explaining reduction or disallowance based on “upcoding.” The following reason codes, however, are included in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602: 23 – Payment disallowed: medical necessity: diagnosis does not support the services rendered. – Payment disallowed: insufficient documentation: documentation does not substantiate the service billed was rendered. – Payment disallowed: insufficient documentation: level of evaluation and management service not supported by documentation. Neither EOBR submitted to Florida Hospital includes reason code 23, 40, or 41. And neither EOBR explains or otherwise suggests that that Florida Hospital’s level of billing was not supported by medical necessity, services rendered, or sufficient documentation. In fact, Petitioners did not disallow reimbursement and do not contend that reimbursement should be denied for any services rendered by Florida Hospital to R. P. and J. L. on the grounds that the billed services were not medically necessary for the injured employees’ compensable injuries. In addition, Petitioners did not adjust or disallow payment for any of the billed procedures on the grounds that the procedures were not provided. In sum, the EOBR’s did not give Florida Hospital notice that alleged “upcoding” was an issue. Even if Petitioner’s EOBR’s gave Florida Hospital notice that it was asserting “upcoding” as a reason to reduce or adjust the hospital’s bill, the evidence does not support a finding that Florida Hospital utilized the wrong code in its billing for emergency department evaluation and management services. The CPT® 2009 Current Procedural Terminology Professional Edition, (Copyright 2008), (CPT book), is adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602(3)(d) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 60L-7.020(2). The CPT book sets forth the procedure codes for billing and reporting by hospitals and physicians. The CPT book sets forth CPT codes ranging from 99281 through 99285 used to report evaluation and management services provided in a hospital’s emergency department, described as follows: 99281: Emergency department visit for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: A problem focused history; A problem focused examination; and Straightforward medical decision making. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies and provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient’s and/or family’s needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are self limited or minor. 99282: Emergency department visit for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: An expanded problem focused history; An expanded problem focused examination; and Medical decision making of low complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies and provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient’s and/or family’s needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of low to moderate severity. 99283: Emergency department visit for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: An expanded problem focused history; An expanded problem focused examination; and Medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies and provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient’s and/or family’s needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate severity. 99284: Emergency department visit for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: A detailed history; A detailed examination; and Medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies and provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient’s and/or family’s needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of high severity, and require urgent evaluation by the physician but do not pose an immediate significant threat to life or physiologic function. 99285: Emergency department visit for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: A comprehensive history; A comprehensive examination; and Medical decision making of high complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies and provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient’s and/or family’s needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of high severity and pose an immediate significant threat to life or physiologic function. Mr. von Sydow testified that a Qmedtrix “medical director,” reviewed Florida Hospital’s bill for services rendered to R. P., but not the medical records, and recommended that the hospital’s charge for emergency department services under CPT 99285 be “re-priced” to Qmedtrix’s determination of the “usual and customary charge” for CPT 99284. Mr. von Sydow acknowledged the need for physician review for some cases (as opposed to review by non-physician coders) by testifying, “The more complicated the medicine, the more likely it is that he [a medical director at Qmedtrix] wants to see it.” Despite Qmedtrix’s original determination to “reprice” the bill from CPT code 99285 to CPT code 99284 (reflected in the reduced payment but not explained in the EOBR), Mr. von Sydow opined that the correct CPT code for emergency department services provided to patient R. P. was 99283, as opposed to 99285 billed by the hospital. Mr. von Sydow testified that his opinion was based upon his own review of the medical records, without the assistance of a medical director or medical expert, and review of examples for the CPT codes for emergency department services from the CPT book, and various provisions of ICD-9 and CPT book coding resources. Aside from the fact that Mr. von Sydow’s opinion differed from the purported recommendation of a Qmedtrix “medical director,” Mr. von Sydow is not a physician. Moreover, Qmedtrix failed to provide the testimony of the medical director, or anyone else with medical expertise to evaluate the medical records and services provided or to validate either the opinion of Mr. von Sydow or the original recommendation to “re- price” Florida Hospital’s use of CPT Code 99285 in its bill for emergency department services rendered to patient R. P. Mr. von Sydow offered similar testimony and examples to explain Qmedtrix’s “re-pricing” of Florida Hospital’s bill from CPT code 99284 to CPT code 99282 for emergency services rendered to patient J. L. on behalf of Amerisure. According to Mr. von Sydow, an internal Qmedtrix coder (not a medical director) reviewed the bill for emergency services rendered to J. L. and determined it should be re-priced to the usual and customary charge, as determined by Qmedtrix, using that CPT code 99282. While knowledgeable of the various codes and their uses, given the manner in which preliminary diagnostics under emergency circumstances drives Florida Hospital’s determination of the appropriate CPT code for billing emergency department services, without the testimony of a medical expert familiar with the medical records generated in these cases in light of the facts and circumstances surrounding the emergency care rendered to patients R. P. and J. L., Mr. von Sydow’s testimony was unpersuasive. Ross Edmundson, M.D., an employee, vice-president, and medical manager for Florida Hospital, explained that, unlike other settings, hospitals generally do not have the medical histories of patients presenting for emergency hospital services. When a patient comes to Florida Hospital for emergency services, they are triaged by a nurse to determine the level of urgency, then a doctor sees the patient, conducts a differential diagnosis to rule out possible causes, obtains the patient’s history, and then performs a physical examination. While emergency room physicians at Florida Hospital do not decide which CPT code is utilized for the evaluation and management services provided by its emergency department, the various tests and procedures they undertake to evaluate and treat emergency department patients do. James English, the director of revenue management for Florida Hospital explained the process through his deposition testimony. Florida Hospital, like over 400 other hospitals, uses the “Lynx System” – a proprietary system for creating and maintaining medical records electronically. The program captures each medical service, supply, and physician order that is inputted into the electronic medical record. The hospital’s emergency evaluation and management CPT code is generated from the electronic record. A “point collection system” in the Lynx System translates physician-ordered services, supplies it to a point system, and then assigns the CPT code that is billed based upon the total number of “points” that are in the system at the time the patient is discharged from the emergency department. The level of the evaluation and management CPT code (99281 to 99285) that is reported on Florida Hospital’s bill is a direct reflection of the number and types of medical services that a patient receives from his or her arrival through discharge. In light of evidence showing the manner in which emergency services are provided and the importance of medical records in generating the appropriate billing code for emergency evaluation and management services, it is found that Petitioners failed to provide an adequate analysis of the medical records of either R. P. or J. L. to show that the appropriate CPT codes were not utilized by Florida Hospital in billing for those services. On the other hand, both Petitions for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute filed by Florida Hospital with the Department attached appropriately itemized bills utilizing Form DFS-F5-DWC-90, also known as UB-04 CMS-1450, identifying the charges billed for each line item by revenue code and HCPS or CPT codes. In addition, medical records for the evaluation and treatment provided by Florida Hospital for both patients R. B. and J. L. supporting the itemized bills were submitted to the Department. These documents were also received into evidence at the final hearing. Florida Hospital’s bills at issue correctly identified the hospital’s usual charges for each individual and separately chargeable item, service or supply, with the corresponding code assigned to such billable items as maintained in Florida Hospital’s “charge master.” In addition, Petitioners concede the compensability of both patients’ work-related injuries and do not dispute whether any service or supply rendered and billed by Florida Hospital for these two cases were “medically necessary.”9/ Unbundling As noted above, in Case No. 09-6871, Qmedtrix’s response to Florida Hospital’s petition for resolution of reimbursement dispute contended “unbundling” as a ground for adjustment or disallowance of reimbursement. At the final hearing, Arlene Cotton, the nurse who issued the Dispute Determinations, explained that reason code 63 regarding “unbundling” is inapplicable to hospital billing, as there is no rule that requires hospitals to bundle bill for its services. Mr. von Sydow agreed that reason code 63 was inapplicable. In addition, footnote 2 of Petitioners’ Proposed Recommended Order states, “they did not pursue the allegations of unbundling.” Therefore, it is found that Petitioners did not prove and otherwise abandoned their claim of “unbundling” as a ground to adjust or disallow reimbursement to Florida Hospital. Usual and Customary Charges The Dispute Determinations issued by the Department found that correct payment in both cases equaled 75% of billed charges, citing “Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., [which] incorporates, by reference, the Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2006 Edition (Hospital Manual). Both Section 440.13(12)(a), Florida Statutes, and the Hospital Manual provide that hospital services provided to patients under the workers’ compensation law “shall be reimbursed at 75 percent of usual and customary charges.” The Department interprets the term “usual and customary charges” as set forth in the Hospital Manual and Section 440.13(12)(a), Florida Statutes, quoted above, to mean a hospital’s usual charges of the hospital, whereas Petitioners contend that “usual and customary charges” means the average fee of all providers in a given geographical area. While apparently not contending that Petitioners failed to raise the issue of “usual and customary” charges in their EOBR’s,10/ at the final hearing, the Department argued that “nowhere in [either Macy’s or Amerisure’s] response is the issue of customary charges raised.” A review of the responses filed by Qmedtrix to Florida Hospital’s reimbursement dispute petitions filed with the Department reveal that both raise the issue of “usual and customary charges.” Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Mr. von Sydow’s letter attached to both responses state: As you may know, the proposed adoption of Medicare’s Outpatient Prospective Payment System as a methodology for reimbursing hospitals 60% and 75% of “usual and customary charges” follows from the decision of the First District Court of Appeals in One Beacon Insurance v. Agency for Health Care Administration, No. 1D05-5459 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (SB-50 amended section 440.13 to remove all reference to the charges of any individual service provider; this amendment reveals the legislative intent to eliminate calculation of a “usual and customary charge” based on the fees of any one provider in favor of a calculation based on average fees of all providers in a given geographical area). This court decision requires DFS to define payment rates for out patient service that are uniformly applicable to all hospitals in a given geographic area. In addition, at the final hearing, the Department argued that the petitions for administrative hearing did “not raise as a disputed issue of fact or law whether or not usual and customary charges should apply in this case.” Indeed, a review of the request for relief set forth in the petitions for administrative hearings filed by Petitioners do not mention the issue of “usual and customary charges.” Rather, the relief requested by both petitions for administrative review of the Dispute Determinations, as summarized in the Joint Prehearing Stipulation, is: Petitioner[s] seeks reversal of OMS’ Determination(s) and the matters remanded for the Department to: direct payment based upon the actual treatment required/provided and pursuant to the correct CPT code; find that the hospital upcoded and that Petitioner properly reimbursed (or exceeded amount due); and determine that the hospital has the burden of proof to substantiate its billing and the use of the chosen CPT code. Contrary to the Department’s argument, however, both petitions for administrative hearing raise the issue of “usual and customary charges.” Page 9 of Macy’s petition, in pertinent part states: Petitioner submits that in issuing the above findings OMS failed to consider the holding in One Beacon Insurance v. Agency for Health Care Administration (wherein the Court determined that reimbursement should not be based solely upon a mathematical equation [as found within the Reimbursement Manual] and applying it to the fee charged by a particular provider; and that by eliminating the reference to any one facility’s charges, the legislature intended that the charges be based on average fees of all providers in a geographical area as opposed to the fees of the particular provider in question). Likewise, review of Amerisure’s petition for administrative hearing reveals that the issue of “usual and customary charges” was raised. Pages 7 and 8 of Amerisure’s petition state, in pertinent part: Further, if the Hospital is permitted to utilize incorrect revenue codes it would be impossible to determine whether the charges are consistent with the Hospital’s own [usual and customary] charges for the service, procedure or supplies in question and, further, whether such charges are consistent with charges by other like facilities (in the same geographical area) for the same services, procedures, or supplies. See One Beacon Insurance, supra. In addition, Amerisure’s petition on page 12 states with regard to the Department’s determination: Such finding was issued without consideration of . . . the amounts charged for the same services in the Orlando area where this hospital is located. Petitioners further preserved the issue of “usual and customary charges” in the first paragraph of their statement of position on page 3 of the Joint Prehearing Statement, as follows: Petitioners, Macy’s and Amerisure, take the position that the Determinations must be reversed as the Department has the duty to scrutinize the bills in question in order to determine, first, whether the hospital, in fact, charged its usual charge for the services provided, and second, whether the billed charges are in line with the customary charges of other facilities in the same community (for the same or similar services) and that the Department failed to do so. As such, Petitioners contend that payment for services provided by Florida Hospital should have been based upon 75% of usual and customary charges, not 75% of billed charges. Therefore, it is found that Petitioners have preserved the issue of “usual and customary charges” for consideration in this administrative proceeding. Although preserved, Petitioners failed to demonstrate that their interpretation of “usual and customary charges” should prevail. The Department has consistently interpreted the term “usual and customary charges” as used in the Hospital Manual, Section 440.13(12)(a), Florida Statutes, and rules related to hospital reimbursement under the workers’ compensation law as the “usual and customary charges” of the hospital reflected on the hospital’s “charge master.” The Hospital Manual requires each hospital to maintain a charge master and to produce it “when requested for the purpose of verifying its usual charges. . . .” (Emphasis added). Petitioners did not conduct or request to conduct an audit to verify whether the charges billed by Florida Hospital corresponded with the Florida Hospital’s charge master. In fact, Mr. von Sydow conceded at the final hearing that Florida Hospital’s bills at issue were charged in accordance with Florida Hospital’s charge master. Nor did Petitioners institute rule challenge proceedings against the Department regarding the Hospital Manual, incorporated by reference into Florida Administrative Code Rule 38F-7.501. Instead, Petitioners assert that they should be able to reduce Florida Hospital bills based upon a different interpretation of the phrase “usual and customary charges” to mean the average charge in the community as determined by Qmedtrix. Qmedtrix is not registered with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, and does not employ any Florida-licensed insurance adjuster, physician, or registered nurse. Qmedtrix earns 12 to 15 percent of “savings” realized by carriers utilizing their bill review services. For example, if a bill is reduced by $100, Qmedtrix is paid $12.11/ Qmedtrix uses a proprietary bill review system called “BillChek.” According to Qmedtrix’s website: BillChek reviews out-of-network medical charges for all bill types in all lines of coverage, including group health, auto, medical, and workers’ compensation. BillChek is a unique specialty cost- containment service that determines an accurate and reasonable reimbursement amount for non-network facility and ancillary medical charges. BillChek incorporates historical data to help determine reasonable payment recommendations across all sectors of the health care industry. All BillCheck recommendations are backed by extensive medical and legal expertise, and supported by Qmedtrix’s experienced Provider Relations and Dispute Resolution teams. According to the testimony of Mr. von Sydow, Qmedtrix collects and maintains data from various sources, including Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), the American Hospital Directory (AHD.com), and HCFA 2552’s (data reported to the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services on HCFA 2522) in order to construct a database of health care providers’ usual charges. Mr. von Sydow advised that AHD.com data was a principle source for constructing the database. He also advised that AHCA data was included in the database even though Qmedtrix found the AHCA data defective. Examples of data downloaded from AHD.com for Florida Hospital showing a profile of the facility was received into evidence as P-5. The data did not, however, show usual charges for the CPT codes for emergency department services at issue in this case. Petitioners also introduced into evidence Exhibits P-6 and P-7, which contained AHD.com data showing average charges for Florida Regional Medical Center and Florida Hospital, respectively, for Level 1 through Level 5 emergency room visits (corresponding to CPT codes 99281 through 99285). Mr. von Sydow explained that the data was part of the information Qmedtrix used to construct the average charge in the community. Petitioners failed to provide similar AHD.com data for other hospitals in the area Qmedtrix determined to be the “community.” In addition, Petitioners introduced AHCA’s Florida Health Finder Web-site, as Exhibit P-8, which ostensibly included average charges for all hospitals in Florida for the subject emergency department CPT codes (99281 through 99285). Mr. von Sydow explained, however, “[w]e find that [the AHCA data] is not refreshed very often, unfortunately, and some other defects in the scrubbing of the data by the agency, which they know, I will say. But this is incorporated in our database to a large extent.” The exhibit was received into evidence for the purpose of helping to explain how Qmedtrix constructed its database, with the recognition that it was largely composed of hearsay. In sum, while Petitioners showed their methodology of constructing the database, other than the AHD.com data for Orlando Regional Medical Center and Florida Hospital, Petitioners failed to introduce reliable evidence sufficient to show the “usual and customary charge” of all providers in a given geographical area as determined by Qmedtrix. In addition, the AHCA data, though characterized by Mr. von Sydow as unreliable, indicates that there is a wide range of differences in emergency room charges between hospitals in Florida. Petitioners’ interpretation of “usual and customary charge” to mean the average fee of all providers in a given geographical area does not take into account an individual hospital’s indigent care, cost of labor, overhead, number of beds, size, age, or various other differences between facilities that could affect amounts each hospital charges for emergency department and other services; the Department’s interpretation does.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a Final Order consistent with this Recommended Order that: Directs Macy’s Claims Services to reimburse Florida Hospital Medical Center $4,160.40 for services rendered to patient R. P., and to submit proof of reimbursement of that amount within 30 days from the date the Final Order is received; Directs Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company to reimburse Florida Hospital Medical Center $2,138.25 for services rendered to patient J. L., and submit proof of reimbursement of that amount to the Department within 30 days from the date the Final Order is received. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 2010.
