The Issue On April 17, 2015, Respondent, Department of Health, issued a Notice of Agency Action Denial of License Renewal ("First Denial Notice"), notifying Petitioner, Alicia Chilito, M.D., that it had denied her application for renewal of her physician license. Thereafter, on May 19, 2015, Respondent issued an Amended Notice of Agency Action Denial of License Renewal ("Second Denial Notice"), reiterating, and stating alternative grounds for, its denial of Petitioner's physician license. Petitioner timely challenged Respondent's decision and the matter was referred to DOAH to conduct a hearing pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1). The final hearing initially was scheduled for August 14, 2015, but pursuant to motions, was set for December 16, 2015. On August 14, 2015, Respondent filed a Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction, contending that there were no disputed issues of material fact to be resolved in a hearing conducted under section 120.57(1). This motion was denied by order issued on September 1, 2015, on the basis that disputed issues of material fact existed regarding whether Petitioner was entitled to renewal of her license by default pursuant to section 120.60(1). On December 11, 2015, Respondent filed Department of Health's Motion in Limine, seeking to limit the scope of the final hearing. A telephonic motion hearing was conducted on December 15, 2015, the day before the final hearing. The undersigned granted the motion and excluded evidence that may be offered at the final hearing to challenge the underlying factual basis on which the Termination Final Order was entered. The final hearing was held on December 16, 2015. Joint Exhibits 1 through 4 were admitted into evidence. Petitioner did not present any witnesses. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 10 were tendered but not admitted, and were proffered for inclusion in the record. Respondent presented the testimony of Heidi Nitty. Respondent's Exhibit 1 was admitted into evidence without objection and Respondent's Exhibits 5 and 6 were admitted over objection. Official recognition was taken of the Final Order issued by the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") in the case of Agency for Health Care Administration v. Alicia Chilito, M.D., Case No. 12-571PH (AHCA November 4, 2013) and the Order Granting Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction in the case of Agency for Health Care Administration v. Alicia Chilito, M.D., Case No. 12-0859MPI (Fla. DOAH July 12, 2012). The one-volume Transcript was filed on January 8, 2016, and the parties were given until January 19, 2016, to file proposed recommended orders. The parties timely filed proposed recommended orders, which were duly considered in preparing this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Alicia Chilito, M.D., is a physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida pursuant to License No. ME 74131. Respondent, Department of Health, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine, including licensing physicians pursuant to chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes (2015). Petitioner timely filed a Renewal Notice, which constituted her application to renew her physician license.1/ Respondent received Petitioner's Application on January 5, 2015. Respondent did not, within 30 days of receipt of her application, request Petitioner to provide any additional information that it was permitted by law to require, nor did it notify her of any apparent errors or omissions in her application. Accordingly, Petitioner's application was complete on January 5, 2015, by operation of section 120.60(1), for purposes of commencing the 90-day period for Respondent to approve or deny her application.2/ The 90-day period from Respondent's receipt of Petitioner's complete application expired on or about April 6, 2015.3/ Heidi Nitty, a government analyst I with Respondent, was involved in the review of Petitioner's application. Her specific role in the application review process was "reviewing court documents and other orders for possible denial of renewal and also recording [Respondent's] final orders in the national practitioner database." In the course of Nitty's review, she determined that Petitioner previously had been terminated from the Florida Medicaid program. Accordingly, she entered a "do-not-renew modifier" to Petitioner's license application file in Respondent's computer system. On January 20, 2015, Petitioner called Respondent to inquire about the status of her application. She was referred to Ms. Nitty, who was not available to speak to her at that time. Petitioner and Nitty exchanged calls over the course of that day, but did not speak to each other until January 21, 2015, when Petitioner again called, and that time, reached, Nitty. At that point, Nitty verbally informed Petitioner that her application "was being denied" due to having previously been terminated from the Florida Medicaid program. On April 17, 2015——some 102 days after Petitioner filed her complete application——Respondent issued its First Denial Notice, notifying Petitioner that it was denying her application. The First Denial Notice stated that Petitioner's license renewal was being denied pursuant to section 456.0635(2)(e) because she was listed on the United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General's List of Excluded Individuals and Entities.4/ On May 19, 2015——some 134 days after Petitioner filed her complete application——Respondent issued its Second Denial Notice, again stating its intent to deny Petitioner's application. However, the Second Denial Notice stated that Petitioner's license renewal was being denied pursuant to section 456.0635(3)(c) because she had been terminated for cause from the Florida Medicaid Program pursuant to section 409.913, Florida Statutes, as reflected in the Termination Final Order issued by AHCA on March 6, 2014. The stated basis for AHCA's March 6, 2014, Termination Final Order was that Petitioner previously had been terminated from the federal Medicare program and the Florida Medicaid program. The Termination Final Order is a final order issued by AHCA, who is not a party to this proceeding. Petitioner disputes the underlying factual basis for AHCA's Termination Final Order and claims that, in any event, she did not receive the notice, issued on January 17, 2014, that AHCA was proposing to terminate her from the Florida Medicaid program; thus, she did not challenge the proposed termination. Although Petitioner has raised these challenges to the Termination Final Order in her Petition for Hearing Involving Disputed Issues of Material Fact filed in this proceeding, the undersigned is not authorized to "reopen" AHCA's Termination Final Order and revisit its factual and legal underpinnings5/ so declined to take evidence on those issues at the final hearing in this proceeding.6/ Petitioner asserts that because Respondent's First Denial Notice and Second Denial Notice both were issued more than 90 days after Respondent received her complete application, she is entitled to licensure by default under section 120.60(1). Respondent counters that the 90-day period for approving or denying Petitioner's license commenced on February 4, 2015, so its First Denial Notice was timely issued. Respondent further asserts that, in any event, Nitty's statement to Petitioner during their January 21, 2015, telephone discussion satisfied the "90-day approval or denial requirement" in section 120.60(1), so that Petitioner is not entitled to issuance of a renewed license by default. It is undisputed that AHCA did not issue the written notices of its decision to deny Petitioner's license renewal until well after April 6, 2015. Therefore, unless Nitty's statement to Petitioner on their January 21, 2015, telephone call constituted Respondent's denial of Petitioner's application within 90 days after its receipt, Petitioner is entitled to issuance of her license by default, pursuant to section 120.60(1). The evidence establishes that when Nitty told Petitioner on January 21, 2015——notably, in response to communication that Petitioner initiated——that her license "was being denied," Respondent had not yet made its final decision to deny her application, so had not yet "approved or denied" Petitioner's license. Nitty's role in the application review process was limited to determining whether Petitioner previously had been terminated from the Florida Medicaid program, and, if so, to draft a denial letter for review and approval by her superiors. That is precisely what she did. Based on her confirmation that Petitioner had previously been terminated from the Florida Medicaid program, Nitty drafted a denial letter, which was then sent up Respondent's "chain of command" for approval or rejection, and, ultimately, for signature by Respondent's Deputy Secretary for Administration. The "chain of command" included her immediate supervisor, the bureau chief, the division director, and legal counsel——any and all of whom had the authority to reject her recommendation. To that point, Nitty acknowledged that the denial letter she drafted had "some rewrite issues" and that her supervisor, had, in fact, rewritten the letter. Nitty was not the person authorized by Respondent to make its final, binding decision to approve or deny Petitioner's application, and she did not know who actually made the ultimate decision to deny Petitioner's license renewal. Thus, at bottom, when Nitty told Petitioner that her license "was being denied," she was only conveying her preliminary assessment, as application review staff, that Petitioner's application was being denied. Nitty's communication of her preliminary assessment could not, and did not, constitute Respondent's "approval or denial" of Petitioner's application.7/ Thus, Respondent did not approve or deny Petitioner's application within the 90-day approval/denial period. Accordingly, pursuant to section 120.60(1), Petitioner's application is "considered approved." There is no evidence showing that, as of the date of the final hearing, Petitioner had notified Respondent's agency clerk of her intent to rely on the default license provision in section 120.60(1).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order that: (1) acknowledges that Petitioner's application for renewal of License No. ME 74131 is considered approved pursuant to section 120.60(1), Florida Statutes, and (2) directs Respondent's agency clerk, upon Petitioner's notification to said agency clerk that complies with section 120.60(1), to issue Petitioner's license, which may include such reasonable conditions as Respondent is authorized by law to require. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of February, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of February, 2016.
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent's license should be disciplined based on conduct, set forth hereinafter in detail as contained in an Administrative Complaint filed herein dated February 14, 1986. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT By Administrative Complaint dated February 14, 1986, Petitioner alleged that Respondent, while a licensed physician in the State of Florida, presigned blank prescriptions which prescriptions were later completed by one Dr. Jorge Horstmann in violation of Section 458.331(1),(aa), Florida Statutes. The complaint also alleged that Respondent never examined the alleged patient, Vivian Perez, who was an undercover operative, nor did the Respondent maintain any patient records for the treatment and thereby violated Section 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment and by prescribing a legend drug other than in the course of the physician's professional practice; that Respondent committed gross or repeated malpractice or failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes. The Administrative Complaint further alleged that Respondent billed medicaid for various visits for the undercover operative, as well as fictitious children, and made or filed reports with Medicaid which the Respondent knew to be false and thereby failed to perform statutory or legal obligations placed upon a licensed physician in violation of Sections 458.331(1)(1) and 817.234, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received during the hearing and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Respondent, Alfonso Rodriguez-Cuellar is, and has been at times material hereto, a licensed physician in the State of Florida having been issued license number MME002856. During June, 1983, Respondent shared office space with Dr. Jorge Horstmann who was at the time, not a licensed medicaid provider. Respondent was licensed as a medicaid provider during times material and was so licensed during June, 1983. During June, 1983, an investigation was undertaken by the State of Florida Auditor General's Office and as a result of that investigation, Special Agent Vivian Perez visited Respondent's office and requested to be attended by Dr. Horstmann. At the time, Special Agent Perez presented the receptionist, Emerson Figeuroa, her Medicaid card listing herself and (3) fictitious children as medicaid recipients. During that visit, four (4) Medicaid files were prepared by office staff and Special Agent Perez was seen by a person who identified himself as Dr. Horstmann. Dr. Horstmann appeared and testified in these proceedings and acknowledged that he, in fact, treated Special Agent Perez. Dr. Horstmann did not examine Agent Perez. Dr. Horstmann was carrying a prescription pad while he attended to Agent Perez and Agent Perez observed Dr. Horstmann complete prescriptions from the pad with the exception of the signatures. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1). Dr. Horstmann left the room where he was attending Agent Perez. When he returned, they were signed by Respondent. Agent Perez was then given the prescriptions and she took them to a pharmacy and filled them by purchasing non- pharmaceutical items. (TR 89-92). Emerson Figeuroa was employed by Respondent as a medical assistant and receptionist since approximately 1982. Ms. Figeuroa denied that Respondent presigned prescriptions for Dr. Horstmann and contends that records are maintained for all of Respondent's patients. Ms. Figeuroa recognized Respondent's signature on two prescriptions received in evidence as being Respondent's signature. (Respondent's Exhibit 1 and 2). At the same time, Ms. Figeuroa denied that Respondent's signature appeared on prescriptions introduced which were the prescriptions given to Agent Perez. Hugh Fitzpatrick, a medical investigator for Petitioner, interviewed Respondent during June of 1983. Investigator Fitzpatrick's main concern was whether Respondent was presigning prescriptions for Dr. Horstmann. Investigator Fitzpatrick inquired of Respondent regarding that claim and Respondent admitted that he signed the prescriptions given to Agent Perez for Dr. Horstmann; that he signed the prescriptions as a friend and that he knew that Dr. Horstmann had been licensed and simply had not been provided with the documentation reflective of the fact that he (Dr. Horstmann) had been licensed as a Medicaid Provider. Respondent testified on his own behalf and openly admitted that the signatures on the prescriptions provided to Agent Perez were his although he questioned the "MD" next to his signature. (TR 58-60). Respondent also conceded that he never treated a patient by the name of Vivian Toledo (a/k/a Vivian Perez); he had no medical records for Toledo (Perez) or her children and acknowledged that he medically treat a large volume of patients, a great majority of which are Medicaid recipients. Respondent conceded that he received a check from Medicaid for $1,900 reflecting payment for the medical treatment of a large number of medicaid patients. Respondent conceded that although he signed the medicaid forms, the forms are prepared by other office personnel. Respondent usually does not verify the names of the individuals on the list to ascertain if he, in fact, treated each patient listed before he executes the form requesting payment from medicaid. (TR 64 and 86). Respondent is duty bound to ensure that he only bills medicaid for patients that he has, in fact, treated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby Recommended that Respondent's license be suspended for a period of (30) days. It is further recommended that the Board impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount ($2,000). Recommended this 10th day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 10th day of February, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Joel S. Fass, Esquire Colodny, Fass & Talenfeld, P.A. 626 N. E 124 Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Franz A. Arango, Esquire 1999 S. W. 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33145 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (Petitioner or Agency), is entitled to a Medicaid reimbursement and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the authority and responsibility of administering the Florida Medicaid Program. As part of this authority, the Petitioner is required to recover Medicaid overpayments when appropriate. See § 409.913, Fla. Stat. (2006). At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was a licensed physician and a Medicaid provider subject to the provisions of Chapter 409. As a Medicaid provider, the Respondent was authorized to provide services to eligible patients but was obligated to comply with the Medicaid Provider Agreement in doing so. The Medicaid Program contemplates that authorized providers will provide services to eligible patients, bill the program and be paid according to the Medicaid standards. All Medicaid providers must practice within the guidelines of the Physicians Coverage and Limitations Handbook and applicable law. Providers may be audited so that it can be verified the process was appropriately followed. In this case, the Respondent was audited. According to the audit findings, the Respondent received payment for services that he did not perform. Dr. Eiber (a physician not part of the Respondent’s practice group) reviewed and signed off on x-ray studies and reports for which the Respondent billed and was paid by Medicaid. Dr. Eiber is a Medicaid provider but he is not affiliated with the Respondent or the Respondent’s group. In order for the Respondent to bill and receive payment for Dr. Eiber’s work, the latter physician would have to be listed and identified within the group in which the Respondent practiced. The Respondent was responsible for all billings for which he received payments. In connection with billing, the Respondent was required to maintain and retain all Medicaid- related invoices or claims for the audit period. In this regard, the Physician Coverage and Limitations Handbook specifies that when a radiological study is performed in an office setting, either the physician billing the maximum fee must have performed or indirectly supervised the performance and interpreted the study; or if a group practice, a member of the group must perform all components of the services. That procedure was not followed. When the Agency disallows a paid Medicaid claim, it must seek to recover the overpayment from the Medicaid provider who received payment on the claim. This is the basis of the “pay and chase” methodology used in the Medicaid program. The claims are paid, subject to audit, and recovery is sought when the claim is disallowed. Based on the audit findings in this cause, the Agency seeks $32,935.96 as an overpayment of Medicaid claims paid to the Respondent. The Petitioner also seeks an administrative fine in the amount of $1000.00. The Respondent was given the results of the audit and afforded an opportunity to respond and provide additional information to the Agency to show that the amounts billed were correct. The Respondent has presented no supplemental information to corroborate the correctness of the claims at issue.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order sustaining the Final Audit Report and finding an overpayment against the Respondent in the amount of $32,9935.96. The Final Order should also impose an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. S DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 21st day of February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig A. Brand, Esquire Law Offices of Craig A. Brand, P.A. Grove Forest Plaza 2937 Southwest 27th Avenue, Suite 101 Miami, Florida 33133 Willis Melvin, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Craig H. Smith, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Dr. Andrew C. Agwunobi, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether the Petitioner must reimburse the Respondent for Medicaid overpayments as set out in the Amended Final Agency Audit Report dated November 13, 2000, and, if so, the amount to be repaid.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Agency is the state agency responsible for the administration of the Medicaid program in Florida, and, as one of its duties, the Agency is charged with recovering overpayments made to Medicaid providers. Section 409.913, Florida Statutes (2000). At all times material to this proceeding, Peripheral Medical Services provided durable medical equipment and home health services to Medicaid recipients in Florida pursuant to a contract with the Agency, and it was assigned Medicaid provider number 950348000.2 The Medicaid Provider Agreement entered into by Peripheral Medical Services provides in pertinent part: The Provider agrees to participate in the Florida Medicaid program under the following terms and conditions: * * * (5) The Medicaid provider shall: * * * (b) Keep and maintain in a systematic and orderly manner all medical and Medicaid related records as the Agency may require and as it determines necessary; make available for state and federal audits for five years, complete and accurate medical, business, and fiscal records that fully justify and disclose the extent of the goods and services rendered and billings made under the Medicaid program. The provider agrees that only contemporaneously made records of goods and services provided will be admissible in evidence in any proceeding relating to payment for or provision of services for the purpose of supporting any claim submitted to or paid by the Medicaid program. After the Agency received a routine report from its Medicaid Program Office located in Miami, Florida, the Agency conducted an audit of the claims submitted by Peripheral Medical Services for the 27 Medicaid recipients to whom it provided oxygen durable medical equipment and services during the audit period extending from August 5, 1996, to July 6, 1998. Pursuant to certificates of medical necessity, Peripheral Medical Services provided each of the 27 Medicaid recipients with an oxygen concentrator during the audit period, and it submitted Medicaid claims for monthly visits to each of these patients. During the period of time covered by the audit, Peripheral Medical Services received payments for services provided to the 27 Medicaid recipients in an amount totaling $76,926.74. Peripheral Medical Services maintained patient records for these 27 Medicaid recipients, and, during the audit, it provided the Agency with the patient records as documentation to support the claims. At the times material to this proceeding, the DME/Medical Supply Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook governing "Oxygen and Oxygen Related Equipment" provided in pertinent part: "Monthly Home Visit Requirements: When the CRTT, RRT or RN conducts a home visit, the following information about the recipient's condition and the condition of the equipment must be documented in the recipient's record: . . . the monthly checks of the operation and safety of the equipment." The Agency's inspector compared the patient records to the list of claims submitted by Peripheral Medical Services for which it received payment from Medicaid, and he reached the following conclusions, which were memorialized in the audit work papers and the summary report he prepared: Peripheral Medical Services made 21 claims for payment for monthly visits to patient M.C., but it failed to provide documentation establishing that checks of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators were performed at 14 of the visits; $3,639.90 of the $6,106.80 paid by Medicaid was not supported by documentation. Peripheral Medical Services made 12 claims for payment for monthly visits to patient C.M., but it failed to provide documentation establishing that checks of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators were performed at eight of the visits; $2,498.20 of the $3,747.30 paid by Medicaid was not supported by documentation. Peripheral Medical Services made 14 claims for payment for monthly visits to patient J.P-O., but it failed to provide documentation establishing that checks of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators were performed at eight of the visits; $2,498.20 of the $4,340.55 paid by Medicaid was not supported by documentation. Peripheral Medical Services made 13 claims for payment for monthly visits to patient F.A., but it failed to provide documentation establishing that checks of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators were performed at eight of the visits; $2,361.63 of the $3,915.18 paid by Medicaid was not supported by documentation. Peripheral Medical Services made 20 claims for payment for monthly visits to patient N.V., but it failed to provide documentation establishing that checks of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators were performed at 12 of the visits; $3,595.18 of the $6,061.98 paid by Medicaid was not supported by documentation. Peripheral Medical Services made ten claims for payment for monthly visits to patient M.P., but it failed to provide documentation establishing that checks of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators were performed at six of the visits; $1,325.22 of the $2,270.36 paid by Medicaid was not supported by documentation. Peripheral Medical Services made one claim for payment for a monthly visit to patient M.A., and it provided documentation establishing that a check of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators was performed at this visit; the payment made by Medicaid was supported by documentation. Peripheral Medical Services made one claim for payment for a monthly visit to patient M.B., and it provided documentation establishing that a check of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators was performed at this visit; the payment made by Medicaid was supported by documentation. Peripheral Medical Services made 21 claims for payment for monthly visits to patient R.Q., but it failed to provide documentation establishing that checks of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators were performed at 15 of the visits; $4,172.69 of the $6,015.04 paid by Medicaid was not supported by documentation. Peripheral Medical Services made 19 claims for payment for monthly visits to patient M.P., but it failed to provide documentation establishing that checks of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators were performed at 12 of the visits; $3,975.64 of the $5,833.64 paid by Medicaid was not supported by documentation. Peripheral Medical Services made 11 claims for payment for monthly visits to patient E.D., but it failed to provide documentation establishing that checks of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators were performed at six of the visits; $1,813.19 of the $3,366.74 paid by Medicaid was not supported by documentation. Peripheral Medical Services made 15 claims for payment for monthly visits to patient I.S., but it failed to provide documentation establishing that checks of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators were performed at ten of the visits; $2,679.60 of the $4,233.15 paid by Medicaid was not supported by documentation. Peripheral Medical Services made five claims for payment for monthly visits to patient R.G., but it failed to provide documentation establishing that checks of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators were performed at any of the visits; the entire $1,522.25 paid by Medicaid was not supported by documentation. Peripheral Medical Services made one claim for payment for a monthly visit to patient R.B., and it provided documentation establishing that a check of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators was performed at this visit; the payment made by Medicaid was supported by documentation. Peripheral Medical Services made two claims for payment for monthly visits to patient A.A., but it failed to provide documentation establishing that a check of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators was performed at one of the visits; $320.10 of the $640.20 paid by Medicaid was not supported by documentation. Peripheral Medical Services made one claim for payment for a monthly visit to patient L.B., and it provided documentation establishing that a check of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators was performed at this visit; the payment made by Medicaid was supported by documentation. Peripheral Medical Services made 20 claims for payment for monthly visits to patient D.C., but it failed to provide documentation establishing that checks of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators were performed at 14 of the visits; $3,868.24 of the $5,726.24 paid by Medicaid was not supported by documentation. Peripheral Medical Services made one claim for payment for a monthly visit to patient D.M., and it provided documentation establishing that a check of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators was performed at this visit; the payment made by Medicaid was supported by documentation. Peripheral Medical Services made one claim for payment for a monthly visit to patient K.R., and it provided documentation establishing that a check of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators was performed at this visit; the payment made by Medicaid was supported by documentation. Peripheral Medical Services made 16 claims for payment for monthly visits to patient D.G., but it failed to provide documentation establishing that checks of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators were performed at ten of the visits; $2,954.88 of the $4,812.88 paid by Medicaid was not supported by documentation. Peripheral Medical Services made 23 claims for payment for monthly visits to patient M.V., but it failed to provide documentation establishing that checks of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators were performed at 15 of the visits; $4,172.69 of the $6,639.59 paid by Medicaid was not supported by documentation. Peripheral Medical Services made one claim for payment for a monthly visit to patient L.F., and it provided documentation establishing that a check of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators was performed at this visit; the payment made by Medicaid was supported by documentation. Peripheral Medical Services made six claims for payment for monthly visits to patient R.N., but it failed to provide documentation establishing that checks of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators were performed at any of the visits; the entire $1,920.60 paid by Medicaid was not supported by documentation. Peripheral Medical Services made 22 claims for payment for monthly visits to patient T.P., but it failed to provide documentation establishing that checks of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators were performed at 15 of the visits; $4,172.69 of the $6,335.14 paid by Medicaid was not supported by documentation. Peripheral Medical Services made nine claims for payment for monthly visits to patient A.V., but it failed to provide documentation establishing that checks of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators were performed at eight of the visits; $1,889.30 of the $2,102.70 paid by Medicaid was not supported by documentation. Peripheral Medical Services made two claims for payment for monthly visits to patient R.P., and it provided documentation establishing that checks of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators were performed at these visits; the payments made by Medicaid were supported by documentation. aa. Peripheral Medical Services made one claim for payment for a monthly visit to patient E.R., and it provided documentation establishing that a check of the operation and safety of the oxygen concentrators was performed at this visit; the payment made by Medicaid was supported by documentation. The patient records provided by Peripheral Medical Services do not contain documentation that the required operation and safety checks were performed in the months identified by the Agency in its audit work papers, and the Agency's calculations of the amounts paid by Medicaid that are subject to recoupment are supported by the summary report prepared by the Agency's inspector, as well as by the Agency's summary report. Peripheral Medical Services received payments totalling $49,380.20 from Medicaid on claims not supported by documentation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order finding that Peripheral Medical Services, Inc., was overpaid for services provided to Medicaid recipients for the audit period extending from August 5, 1996, to July 6, 1998, and requiring Peripheral Medical Services, Inc., to repay the Agency for Health Care Administration the principal amount of $49,380.20. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 8th day of November, 2001.
Conclusions THE PARTIES resolved all disputed issues and executed a Settlement Agreement. The parties are directed to comply with the terms of the attached settlement agreement. Based on the foregoing, this file is CLOSED. DONE and ORDERED on this the a l ah, of fiderd , 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 4% ‘ CA kh fo ELIZABETH DUDEK, SECRETARY Agency for Health Care Administration 1 Filed June 26, 2012 2:18 PM Division of Administrative Hearings A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Jeffries H. Duvall Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Office of the General Counsel (Interoffice) CYNTHIA A. MIKOS, ESQ. Allen Dell, P.A. 202 S. Rome Ave. - Suite 100 Tampa, FL 33606 cmikos@allendell.com (Electronic Mail) J.D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Mike Blackburn, Bureau Chief, Medicaid Program Integrity Finance and Accounting Health Quality Assurance (via email) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to the above named addressees by U.S. Mail, Laserfiche or electronic mail on this the ZS" day of c JA » 2012. Richard Shoop, Esquire Agency Clerk State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 412-3630/FAX (850) 921-0158 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 11-5089MPI CI. NO. 11-1553-000 HILLSBOROUGH ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS, INC., Respondent. / SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (‘AHCA” or “the Agency”), and Hillsborough Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc. (“PROVIDER”), by and through the undersigned, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. The two parties enter into this agreement to memorialize the resolution of this matter. 2. PROVIDER is a Florida Medicaid provider, provider number 024102498 and was a provider during the audit period, January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009. 3. In its Final Agency Audit Report (constituting final agency action) dated September 2, 2011, AHCA notified PROVIDER that review of Medicaid claims by the Division of Medicaid, Office of the Deputy Secretary, and Medicaid Program Integrity (MPI), Office of the AHCA Inspector General, indicated certain claims, in whole or in part, had been inappropriately paid. The Agency sought recoupment of this overpayment in the amount of $34,317.55. In response, PROVIDER filed a petition for formal administrative hearing. It was assigned DOAH Case No. 11-5089MPI. Hillsborough Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc. C.l. 11-1553-000 - Settlement Agreement 4. Subsequent to the original audit, in preparation for trial, AHCA re-reviewed the PROVIDER’s claims and evaluated additional documentation submitted by the PROVIDER. As a result of the additional review, AHCA determined the overpayment should be adjusted to $27,078.51, plus $5,415.70 in fines and $674.38 in costs for a total due of $33,168.59. 5. In order to resolve this matter without further administrative proceedings, PROVIDER and the AHCA agree as follows: (1) —AHCA agrees to accept the payment set forth herein in settlement of the overpayment issues arising from the captioned audit. (2) The amount in dispute that is now being resolved is twenty-seven thousand seventy eight dollars and fifty-one cents ($27,078.51) on the indebtedness, five thousand four hundred fifteen dollars and seventy cents ($5,415.70) in fines, plus six hundred seventy four dollars and thirty-eight cents ($674.38) in investigative costs for a total of thirty three thousand one hundred sixty eight dollars and fifty- nine cents ($33,168.59). PROVIDER will make an initial payment of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) and the remaining balance to be paid in 6 equal monthly installments. This amount due will be offset by any amount already received by the Agency in this matter. Furthermore, PROVIDER is advised that pursuant to Section 409.913, Florida Statutes, failure to pay in full, or enter into and abide by the terms of any repayment schedule set forth by the Agency may result in termination from the Medicaid program, withholding of future Medicaid payments, or other such remedies as provided by law. Any outstanding balance accrues at 10% interest per year. Full payment will fully and completely settle all claims in these proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings Hillsborough Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc. C.1. 11-1553-000 - Settlement Agreement 6. (DOAH Case No. 11-5089MPI). Should the provider’s enrollment with Medicaid be terminated, the full amount owed will be due within 30 days of termination. (3) In the event any interim payments are received or withheld, by whatever means, prior to the entry of the Final Order, Medicaid Accounts Receivable shall make the adjustment to credit such amounts, dollar for dollar, as quickly as is practicable. (4) Compliance with this repayment agreement fully and completely settles all claims in these proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH Case No. 11-5089MPI). Should the provider’s enrollment with Medicaid be terminated, the full amount owed will be due within 30 days of termination. (5) PROVIDER and AHCA agree that full payment, as set forth above, resolves and settles this case completely. It will release both parties from any administrative or civil liabilities or claims arising from the findings in audit C.I. 11-1553-000. (6) PROVIDER agrees that it will not rebill the Medicaid Program in any manner for claims that were not covered by Medicaid, which are the subject of the audit in this case. Questions regarding procedures for submitting payment should be directed to Medicaid Accounts Receivable, (850) 412-3901. The C.I. number listed on the first page of this agreement must be legibly entered on the check to assure proper credit. Please mail payment to: AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE ADMINISTRATION Medicaid Accounts Receivable — MS # 14 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. 2, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Hillsborough Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc. C.1. 11-1553-000 - Settlement Agreement 7. PROVIDER agrees that failure to pay any monies due and owing under the terms of this Agreement shall constitute PROVIDER’S authorization for the Agency, without further notice, to withhold the total remaining amount due under the terms of this agreement from any monies due and owing to PROVIDER for any Medicaid claims. 8. AHCA reserves the right to enforce this Agreement under the laws of the State of Florida, the Rules of the Medicaid Program, and all other applicable rules and regulations. 9. This settlement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing or error by either party with respect to this case or any other matter. 10. Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, with the exception that the Respondent shall reimburse, as part of this settlement, $674.38 in Agency costs and $5,415.70 in fines. This amount is included in the calculations and demand of paragraph 5(2). 11. The signatories to this Agreement, acting in a representative capacity, represent that they are duly authorized to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the respective parties. 12. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the provisions of the laws of Florida. Venue for any action arising from this Agreement shall be in Leon County, Florida. 13. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between PROVIDER and AHCA, including anyone acting for, associated with or employed by them, concerning all matters and supersedes any prior discussions, agreements or understandings; there are no promises, representations or agreements between PROVIDER and the AHCA other than as set forth herein. No modification or waiver of any provision shall be valid unless a written amendment to the Agreement is completed and properly executed by the parties. Hillsborough Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc. C.1. 11-1553-000 - Settlement Agreement 14. This is an Agreement of settlement and compromise, made in recognition that the parties may have different or incorrect understandings, information and contentions, as to facts and law, and with each party compromising and settling any potential correctness or incorrectness of its understandings, information and contentions as to facts and law, so that no misunderstanding or misinformation shall be a ground for rescission hereof. 15. | PROVIDER expressly waives in this matter its right to any hearing pursuant to sections 120.569 or 120.57, Florida Statutes, the making of findings of fact and conclusions of law by the Agency, and all further and other proceedings to which it may be entitled by law or rules of the Agency regarding this proceeding and any and all issues raised herein. PROVIDER further agrees that it shall not challenge or contest any Final Order entered in this matter which is consistent with the terms of this settlement agreement in any forum now or in the future available to it, including the right to any administrative proceeding, circuit or federal court action or any appeal. 16. This Agreement is and shall be deemed jointly drafted and written by all parties to it and shall not be construed or interpreted against the party originating or preparing it. 17. To the extent that any provision of this. Agreement is prohibited by law for any reason, such provision shall be effective to the extent not so prohibited, and such prohibition shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement. 18. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding on each party’s successors, assigns, heirs, administrators, representatives and trustees. 19. All times stated herein are of the essence of this Agreement. Hillsborough Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc. C.|. 11-1553-000 - Settlement Agreement 20. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect upon execution by the respective parties in counterpart. ROUGH ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS, INC. Dated: “A727 L ZZ 2012 py. UO CW “CCL FECL (Print name) ITS: SP OPC B22 20 Revi OLN 7 AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, FL 32308-5403 ‘ Dated: G/al 2012 Miller Inspector General Dated: bl f .2012 William H. Roberts Dated: Z f_,2012
The Issue Whether Respondent was overpaid for Medicaid claims submitted during the audit period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004, and, if so, what amount Respondent is obligated to reimburse Petitioner; and whether sanctions and costs should be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact This case involves a Medicaid audit of claims paid by AHCA to Respondent for dates of service from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. The audit in this case evaluated 2,631 paid claims on behalf of 17 Medicaid recipients. During the audit period, Respondent was an enrolled Medicaid waiver provider and had a valid Medicaid Provider Agreement with AHCA. Respondent was authorized to provide home and community-based services to Medicaid waiver recipients. Paragraph 3 of the Medicaid Provider Agreement states that "the provider agrees to comply with all local, state and federal laws, rules, regulations, licensure laws, Medicaid bulletins, manuals, handbooks, and Statements of Policy as they may be amended from time to time."1/ Among other duties, Petitioner investigates and audits Medicaid providers in an effort to identify and recoup overpayments made to providers for services rendered to Medicaid recipients. Petitioner is also empowered to impose sanctions and fines against offending providers. Petitioner, when it identifies overpayment, fraud, or abuse, is charged with taking affirmative steps to recoup any overpayments and can, as appropriate, impose fines, sanctions, and corrective actions plans on the offending provider. Pursuant to what is commonly referred to as the "pay- and-chase" system, Petitioner pays Medicaid providers under an honor system for services rendered to Medicaid recipients. If Petitioner determines that the provider was paid for services rendered which were not in compliance with Medicaid requirements, then Petitioner seeks reimbursement from the provider. By correspondence dated December 8 and December 29, 2006, Petitioner contacted Respondent and requested records related to claims billed to Medicaid by Respondent. Respondent provided documents in response to Petitioner's requests. After considering the information provided by Respondent, Petitioner, on February 27, 2007, issued a Preliminary Audit Report and advised therein that it was believed that Petitioner had overpaid Respondent in the amount of $364,973.45. In response to the Preliminary Audit Report, Respondent submitted additional documentation that it desired for Petitioner to consider. On May 17, 2007, Petitioner, after having reviewed the additional documentation submitted by Respondent, issued a FAR and noted therein that Petitioner had determined that Respondent was overpaid by Medicaid in the amount of $259,033.49. In this same correspondence Petitioner notified Respondent that Petitioner was seeking to impose a $2,000.00 fine against Respondent; would be requiring Respondent to adhere to a corrective action plan in the form of a Provider Acknowledgment Statement; and would be assessing investigative, legal, and expert witness costs against Respondent. In response to Petitioner's correspondence of May 17, 2007, Respondent submitted to Petitioner additional documentation which resulted in the overpayment amount being adjusted downward to $212,683.06. The FAR is supported by Petitioner's staff files, testimonial evidence, spreadsheets related to overpayment determinations, and documentation submitted by Respondent. Collectively, this supporting documentation constitutes Petitioner's "work papers" within the meaning of section 409.913(22), Florida Statutes (2003).2/ Petitioner's work papers establish that Respondent was overpaid $212,683.06. Petitioner's work papers show the following with respect to the 17 Medicaid recipients whose paid claims were audited: For Medicaid recipient no. 1, Petitioner audited 9 claims. For each claim, Petitioner determined that Respondent billed and erroneously received payment for services provided to the recipient that were not authorized by Medicaid; For Medicaid recipient no. 2, Petitioner audited 388 claims. Of the claims reviewed, six were found to be in compliance with Medicaid standards. The remaining claims resulted in overpayment to Respondent because Respondent failed to produce sufficient supporting documentation related to staff eligibility to provide the services for which Medicaid was billed. For other claims, there were unexplained alterations made by Respondent to certain time entries contained in the Medicaid services log book; For Medicaid recipient no. 3, Petitioner audited 110 claims. Of the claims reviewed, only one claim resulted in overpayment due to Respondent's failure to provide sufficient supporting documentation to support the services for which Medicaid was billed; For Medicaid recipient no. 4, Petitioner audited 51 claims. Of the claims reviewed, 23 were found to be in compliance with Medicaid standards. The remaining claims resulted in overpayment to Respondent because there was insufficient documentation related to the eligibility of Respondent's staff to provide the services for which Medicaid was billed; For Medicaid recipient no. 5, Petitioner audited five claims. Of the claims reviewed, two were found to be in compliance with Medicaid standards. The remaining claims resulted in overpayment to Respondent because Respondent could not produce sufficient documentation to support the services for which Medicaid was billed; For Medicaid recipient no. 6, Petitioner audited 32 claims. Each of the 32 claims resulted in overpayment to Respondent because Respondent could not produce sufficient documentation to support the services for which Medicaid was billed; For Medicaid recipient no. 7, Petitioner audited 279 claims. Of the claims reviewed, 94 were found to be in compliance with Medicaid standards. The remaining claims resulted in overpayment to Respondent because Respondent could not produce sufficient documentation to support the services for which Medicaid was billed; For Medicaid recipient no. 8, Petitioner audited 155 claims. Of the claims reviewed, 95 were found to be in compliance with Medicaid standards. The remaining claims resulted in overpayment to Respondent because Respondent could not produce sufficient documentation to support the services for which Medicaid was billed; For Medicaid recipient no. 9, Petitioner audited 239 claims. Of the claims reviewed, 82 were found to be in compliance with Medicaid standards. The remaining claims resulted in overpayment to Respondent because Respondent could not produce sufficient documentation to support the services for which Medicaid was billed, and Respondent overbilled for certain services provided to this Medicaid recipient; For Medicaid recipient no. 10, Petitioner audited 82 claims. None of the claims reviewed were found to be in compliance with Medicaid standards. Respondent was overpaid for these claims because Respondent could not produce sufficient documentation to support the services for which Medicaid was billed, and Respondent overbilled for certain services provided to this Medicaid recipient; For Medicaid recipient no. 11, Petitioner audited five claims. None of the claims reviewed were found to be in compliance with Medicaid standards. This Medicaid recipient was authorized to receive services through December 31, 2003. For each claim, Respondent billed, and was paid for, services that were provided after December 31, 2003. This resulted in an overpayment to Respondent; For Medicaid recipient no. 12, Petitioner audited 113 claims. Of the claims reviewed, 79 were found to be in compliance with Medicaid standards. The remaining claims resulted in overpayment to Respondent because Respondent could not produce sufficient documentation to support the services for which Medicaid was billed, and Respondent overbilled for certain services provided to this Medicaid recipient; For Medicaid recipient no. 13, Petitioner audited 20 claims. Of the claims reviewed, 15 were found to be in compliance with Medicaid standards. The remaining claims resulted in overpayment to Respondent because Respondent failed to follow the recipient's support plan goals and double-billed Medicaid for services that were provided to the recipient; For Medicaid recipient no. 14, Petitioner audited 343 claims. Of the claims reviewed, 275 were found to be in compliance with Medicaid standards. The remaining claims resulted in overpayment to Respondent because Respondent failed to provide sufficient supporting documentation related to the services for which Medicaid was billed, and Respondent overbilled for certain services provided to this Medicaid recipient; For Medicaid recipient no. 15, Petitioner audited 258 claims. Each of the 258 claims was found to be in compliance with Medicaid standards. For Medicaid recipient no. 16, Petitioner reviewed 222 claims. None of the claims reviewed were found to be in compliance with Medicaid standards. The reviewed claims showed overpayment to Respondent because Respondent failed to provide sufficient supporting documentation related to the services for which Medicaid was billed, the services were provided to the Medicaid recipient by an unqualified individual, and Respondent overbilled for certain services provided to this Medicaid recipient; and For Medicaid recipient no. 17, Petitioner reviewed 320 claims. None of the claims reviewed were found to be in compliance with Medicaid standards. Respondent was overpaid for these claims because Respondent failed to provide sufficient supporting documentation related to the services for which Medicaid was billed, and Respondent overbilled for certain services provided to this Medicaid recipient. On November 30, 2011, Petitioner rested its case-in- chief in the instant matter. At Respondent's request, a third day was authorized for the presentation of evidence so that Respondent could issue subpoenas and offer evidence to rebut Petitioner's claim as appropriate. So as to allow Respondent, who appeared in this matter pro-se, adequate time to prepare its defense, the third day of final hearing was noticed for 9:30 a.m., on February 20, 2012. At 9:51 a.m., on February 20, 2012, the final hearing was announced as being in session. Respondent did not attend the final hearing on February 20, 2012, and has offered no explanation for her absence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration, enter a final order finding that Respondent, ARC Consulting Home Health Agency, Inc., by and through Jasmine J. Allison, Administrator, owes $212,683.06 to Petitioner as an overpayment, plus interest. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 19th day of April, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary' evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: DHRS administers the Program which is jointly funded by the state and federal government under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. The Program is voluntary and is subject to both state and federal laws, rules and regulations. The Program does not reimburse providers such as Dr. Clement for all services rendered. Only those services which are determined to be medically necessary or which the state has determined it wishes to provide are covered by the Program. The services to be rendered and the fees to be paid for those services are set forth in the policy manuals and fee schedules which are given the provider when he enrolls in the Program. Under the Program, the provider files claims in accordance with the policies set forth in the manual. Those claims are computer processed and it is assumed that the provider is submitting the claims in accordance with the policies. The computer system is not programmed to reject all erroneous claims. Therefore, the provider is automatically reimbursed based upon claims submitted. The Program operates on the honor system and must "pay and chase" providers who submit improper claims. Under the Program the state is required to protect the integrity of the Program by reviewing providers for possible fraud and abuse. The Program utilizes a Surveillance Utilization and Review System (SURS) which compares a provider's Medicaid practice with that of his peers. This system takes the provider's computer generated claims history and compares it both quantitatively and qualitatively with the average practice of his peers. When a potential problem is detected, the provider's practice is further reviewed to determine if fraud or abuse has occurred. On November 4, 1983, Dr. Clement signed a provider agreement with DHRS and operated under this provider agreement at all times material to this proceeding. In signing this provider agreement, Dr. Clement agreed to "submit requests for payment in accordance with program policies" and to, "abide by the provisions of the Florida Statutes, policies, procedures, manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program and Federal laws and regulations. In billing under the Program, Dr. Clement is expected to provide services in accordance with generally accepted practices of his profession of dentistry. Those services for which a provider may submit claims are set forth in the Children's Dental Services Manual (HRSM 230-22), a copy of which was provided to Dr. Clement when he entered the Program. In addition to the manual, Dr. Clement was provided with an EDS Billing Handbook which explained the mechanics of submitting a claim. HRSM 230-22 is merely a compilation of procedures for which the Program will reimburse the provider along with the reimbursement rate for each procedure. The manual utilizes procedures and codes utilized by the American Dental Association, is prepared with technical assistance of dental consultants, and is reviewed by various dental associations. The manual is designed for use by dental providers who are knowledgeable in the field of dentistry and are utilizing generally accepted principles of dentistry. In 1985 a SURS Level I Review report, comparing Dr. Clement with his peer group of general dentists providing services to children, indicated possible inappropriate billing of the Program. Because of the nature and extent of the billing problems, Dr. Clement's case was referred to the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) of the State of Florida's Auditor General's Office for possible criminal prosecution. DHRS took no further action pending the criminal investigation. Criminal charges were subsequently filed against Dr. Clement as a result of the MFCU investigation and Dr. Clement's case was referred back to the Medicaid Office of Program Integrity for review of nine possible areas of program policy violations which were not part of the criminal prosecution. The Program thereupon conducted its own investigation into possible abuse by Dr. Clement. Using the preliminary investigation done by an HRS dental consultant who reviewed Dr. Clement's practice for MFCU, and the original Level I Review report, a DHRS investigator reviewed ad hoc computer reports of claims submitted by Dr. Clement for specific dental procedures. Based upon the computer analysis of claims submitted, as well as the advice of the dental consultant, the Program identified nine areas of Dr. Clement's practice of Medicaid billing which were not in compliance with Medicaid billing procedures or generally accepted standards of dental practice. On sixty-six occasions, Dr. Clement submitted claims and was paid for procedures such as examinations, prophylaxis and fluoride treatment at intervals of less than six months. HRSM 230-22 recommends that such procedures be performed no more frequently than once every six months, and this recommendation is recognized under generally accepted standards of dentistry. This recommendation is applicable to both private pay patients and Medicaid patients who are generally indigent. Although such treatment may be necessary on occasions at shorter intervals, Dr. Clement offered no evidence to justify the frequency or the necessity of providing such procedures at intervals of less than the recommended six months. On two hundred and eighty six occasions, Dr. Clement improperly filed claims and received payment for consultations. HRSM 230-22 only allows claims for consultations by a dental specialist (oral surgeon, periodontist, endodontist, or prosthodontist). Dr. Clement is not a dental specialist and should not have submitted claims for such procedures. The manual's definition and interpretation of the appropriate billing procedure for consultation services is in accordance with the generally accepted practice of dentistry. On ninety four occasions, Dr. Clement submitted claims and received payment for behavior management and nitrous oxide on the same visit. HRSM 230- 22 only allows claims for behavior management where nitrous oxide is not used. There was no evidence to show that both behavior management and nitrous oxide on the same visit was necessary. On seven occasions, Dr. Clement submitted claims and received payment for extracting more than one first tooth in a given quadrant. HRSM 230-22 provides a fee of $10.00 for the extraction of the first tooth in a given quadrant which is billed on a claim as procedure D7110 whereas each additional tooth extracted in the same quadrant at the same time is reimbursed at the rate of $7.00 and billed on a claim as procedure D7120. The fee for the removal of the first tooth in a given quadrant is higher than the fee for each succeeding tooth in the same quadrant because anesthesia for the first tooth does not have be administered for each succeeding tooth in the same quadrant. Dr. Clement received payment for 117 alveolectomies (a reshaping of the bone) performed on 52 children which is an excessive number. Alveolectomies should only be performed in extreme cases where, without an alveolectomy, the insertion of dentures or partials would be impossible. It is standard dental practice to perform an alveolectomy only where a denture is supplied. Performing an alveolectomy on a child is not a common practice. There was no evidence that Dr. Clement performed the alveolectomies in preparation of insertion of partials or dentures. Dr. Clement filed an excessive number of claims for pulp caps. A pulp cap is a protective material utilized when the pulp of the tooth is exposed (direct pulp cap) or nearly exposed (indirect pulp cap). HRSM 230-22 differentiates a pulp cap from a medicated base. A pulp cap is reimbursable as a separate claim, the medicated base is not. Dr. Clement claimed and received payment for pulp caps 68.7 percent of the time in conjunction with a tooth restoration. There was credible evidence to show that in the generally accepted practice of dentistry, pulp caps are used no more than 5 percent of the time in a tooth restoration. Dr. Clement billed for pulp caps whenever he applied a medicated base, even though the pulp was not exposed or nearly exposed. On one hundred occasions Dr. Clement improperly filed claims and received payment for palliative (emergency) treatment at the same time that he filed a claim and was paid for regular dental treatment. Palliative treatment is used to relieve pain and discomfort on an emergency basis when time and circumstances contra-indicate a more definitive treatment and additional services. In the general accepted practice of dentistry, palliative treatment is used as a temporary measure to assist the patient until such time as regular treatment can be provided. Palliative treatment and any other treatment are mutually exclusive and normally would not be given on the same day. On those occasion where Dr. Clement filed claims and received payment for both palliative treatment and regular treatment on the same day, there is insufficient evidence to show that this treatment was within the generally accepted practice of dentistry. On sixteen occasions Dr. clement improperly filed claims and was paid for prophylaxis, periodontal scaling, and gingival curettage all on the same date of service. Prophylaxis is the standard cleaning of the teeth. Periodontal scaling is a more advanced procedure of cleaning wherein larger deposits of caclculus are removed by scraping. Gingival curretage is a more drastic procedures wherein pockets which have formed between the gum and the teeth are scraped out. While all three procedures are different, they overlap somewhat and it is not a generally accepted practice of dentistry to perform more than one of these procedures at any given time. There was no evidence presented to show that performing all three procedures on the same date was necessary or was within the generally accepted practice of dentistry. Dr. Clement filed an excessive number of claims for gingival curretage. Dr. Clement claimed and received payment for gingival curretage on 14 percent of his patients under the age of 17. In the generally accepted practice of dentistry, the use of gingival curretage on children will not normally exceed 1 percent to 3 percent for ages 10 and under or 3 percent to 6 percent over the age of 10. Although Dr. Clement urged that these claims for gingival curretage had been given prior approval, the evidence showed that the prior approval had been given based on information furnished by Dr. Clement and the dental consultant giving the prior approval did so on that information on a case by case basis and did not know of the excessive use of gingival curretage by Dr. Clement. Based on the nine areas cited for inappropriate billing, there is substantial competent evidence to show that Dr. Clement was not following generally accepted standards of dental practice.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order finding that Dr. Clement has abused the Florida Medicaid Program and terminating Dr. Clement from participation in the Florida Medicaid Program. Respectfully submitted and entered this 7th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3023 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 as clarified. 21. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 but clarified. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 9 The first sentence adopted in Finding of Fact 19. The balance is rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore E. Mack, Esquire 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Harold E. Regan, Esquire 308 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
