The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is qualified to take the examination for licensure as a mental health counselor.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner executed an application for licensure as a mental health counselor on June 13, 1989. He filed the application with the Board of Clinical Social Workers, Marriage & Family Therapists, and Mental Health Counselors on July 6, 1989. The application was accompanied by the appropriate fee and disclosed that Petitioner satisfied all of the educational requirements for taking the examination. However, Respondent determined that the application was incomplete because Petitioner failed to show that he had had the requisite clinical experience under the supervision of a qualified person. By letter dated July 17, 1989, Respondent informed Petitioner that his application was incomplete pending receipt of, among other things, documentation of the requisite clinical experience under the supervision of a qualified person. A second letter dated January 17, 1990, from Respondent to Petitioner restated that the application was still missing the items set forth in the prior letter. By Order of Intent to Deny filed April 12, 1990, Respondent informed Petitioner that it was denying his application on the grounds set forth above. Petitioner obtained a master's degree in clinical psychology from the University of Central Florida on December 20, 1985. From October 4, 1985, through October 20, 1988, Petitioner worked full- time as a psychological specialist at the Polk Correctional Institution under the supervision of Gerd Garkisch, Ph.D., who was head of the mental health department at the prison. Petitioner's work qualifies as clinical experience in mental health counseling. Dr. Garkisch does not hold any Florida professional licenses, such as a mental health counselor or psychologist. He is not so licensed in any other state, although he is licensed as a psychologist in Puerto Rico. Dr. Garkisch does not meet the education criteria required for licensure as a mental health counselor. Dr. Garkisch earned a master's degree in clinical psychology, which would otherwise satisfy the educational requirement for licensure as a mental health counselor. However, he received his degree from the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul, Institute of Psychology, which is located in Brazil. The school is not accredited by an accrediting agency approved by the U.S. Department of Education, Council on Postsecondary Accreditation, or Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation deny Petitioner's application for licensure as a mental health counselor. ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Linda Biederman, Executive Director Board of Mental Health Counseling 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Vytas J. Urba, Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Suresh Paul Pushkarna, pro se 309 Hidden Hollow Court Sanford, FL 32773
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has had a relationship with his wife since they were 16 years old. At the time the hearing was conducted, husband and wife were 24 years old. They had been married for approximately three years and had a child who was four years old. Beginning February 1995, Petitioner became suspicious that his wife was having an affair with another man. Around that time, the couple argued several times a week. This would cause Petitioner to leave their home. In addition, Petitioner and Mrs. McCall would not speak to each other for a couple of days following these arguments. On March 16, 1995, the man with whom Petitioner's wife was having the relationship called the couple's home. On that occasion, Mrs. McCall would not say who was speaking to her on the telephone and appeared secretive. It led to a further argument between Petitioner and Mrs. McCall. Petitioner then grabbed his keys and started to leave. Mrs. McCall struggled with him to get the keys out of his hand. During the struggle, Mrs. McCall was scratched on her chest. The noise that the couple made was sufficiently noticeable that the neighbors called the police to investigate. When the police arrived at Petitioner's home on March 16, 1995, Petitioner was sitting on the couch. The police noticed the visible marks on Mrs. McCall's chest. Consequently, Petitioner was charged with battery under Section 784.03, Florida Statutes. On March 18, 1995, Petitioner pled no contest to the offense of battery for the incident that took place on March 16, 1995 involving his wife. He was given two days unsupervised probation and required to pay $75.00 in court costs. The court adjudicated Petitioner guilty of the offense. After the March 16, 1995 incident the McCalls continued to argue. On April 11, 1995, when Petitioner left home to go to work that morning, he told Mrs. McCall that he was going to leave work in the afternoon and travel to Deland, Florida, to see his father. Instead, Petitioner went home that afternoon to get some papers before making the trip to see his father. When he arrived at his home a person named Renee, Mrs. McCall's friend, was watching the McCalls' child in one room, while Mrs. McCall was in bed with her male acquaintance in the McCalls' bedroom. When Petitioner discovered his wife with another man, he began to scream and yell and picked up his son to leave the home. Mrs. McCall tried to intervene and stop Petitioner from leaving the home with her son. During the course of this incident, Petitioner grabbed his wife by the arms and pushed her aside, causing her to fall against the wall. The areas upon which she was grabbed by Petitioner were bruised. Mrs. McCall is prone to bruising because she is a hemophiliac. Their child was not harmed during this physical exchange between the couple. After the exchange, Petitioner left the home and went to Deland, leaving the child with his mother. Before discovering his wife in bed with the other man, Petitioner did not know, as a matter of fact, that his wife was having a relationship with that person. When Petitioner discovered his wife in bed with the other man, he did not threaten her, notwithstanding the yelling and screaming. Renee had called the police when Petitioner arrived at the home, but the police did not arrive for one-half hour to one hour after Petitioner had left the home. Mrs. McCall was concerned about how her husband would react beyond the point where he had discovered her with another man. Therefore, she determined to make a complaint about her husband's physical activity in which he bruised her arms. Based upon that complaint, the police determined to arrest Petitioner. Following the trip to Deland Petitioner came back that night and spent the night with a friend in Jacksonville, Florida. The next morning Petitioner called Mrs. McCall and inquired concerning the circumstances of their exchange. Mrs. McCall told him that she had called the police after he left because she was afraid of what he might do to her and that made her "press charges". Petitioner responded by telling his wife where he was located and telling her to have the police come to that location and pick him up, which they did. When the police arrested Petitioner for the events on April 11, 1995, they again charged him with a violation of Section 784.03, Florida Statutes, and made mention that the battery for which he was accused was associated with domestic violence. Following the arrest, Mrs. McCall spoke with the state attorney's office to have them drop the charges for the battery that occurred on April 11, 1995. The state attorney's office was unwilling to drop the charges in view of the prior charge dating from March 16, 1995. Petitioner pled no contest to the battery offense related to the April 11, 1995 incident. He was given a 30-day sentence, credited with serving two days of the sentence, and the remaining 28 days of that sentence were suspended, conditioned upon the successful service of probation. The probation was served for nine months. Petitioner was adjudicated guilty for the offense and was required to participate in a program for individuals who had committed offenses involving domestic violence. The program emphasized controlling one's aggression. Petitioner completed the program related to management of his aggression. In the program to deal with domestic violence, Petitioner and other participants were required to discuss the experiences they had concerning domestic violence. The McCalls lived apart from April, 1995 until January, 1996. During that time, Petitioner kept their child for the most part because his living arrangements were more suitable than those under which Mrs. McCall existed. While they were estranged, initially, the couple did not do things together and would separately spend time with their child. At the end of their estrangement the couple began to do things as a family unit. Subsequent to being reunited, the McCalls had been seeing a marriage counselor for about a month at the time the hearing was conducted. The McCalls had been to four sessions with the counselor and intended to continue seeing a marriage counselor in the future. The McCalls described their relationship as improving since they have been reunited. Prior to the events in March and April, 1995, in which Petitioner battered Mrs. McCall in the manner described, Petitioner had never struck his wife. As explained at the hearing, Mrs. McCall is not concerned that her husband will batter her in the future. Petitioner holds a bachelor's degree in psychology. He has one year of study in sociology in a bachelor's-level program. In the past, he worked two and one-half years for ARA Living Centers, providing direct care to adults. He left that position and took employment with an organization known as New Directions. This was a mental-health position, working with children on an out- patient basis. Petitioner held this job for approximately two years. Beyond that point, Petitioner took a position as a child-guidance case worker in a mental-health capacity. It was that position that prompted the screening that was conducted in January, 1996, leading to the decision to disqualify him from that employment. The procedures followed in the disqualification are as detailed in the preliminary statement above. Petitioner contested the decision to deny him an exemption from disqualification. His request to be heard before the Respondent and to seek a formal hearing to contest the preliminary decision by Respondent denying the exemption from disqualification were both timely filed. Before being terminated from his position as a child-guidance counselor based upon the disqualification, Petitioner had worked voluntarily at a group home for children. In the past, when working with children and adults, Petitioner has never been disciplined or reprimanded concerning his conduct in providing that care. Mr. George Robinson is an HRS Protective Services worker. He began work with Respondent on June 12, 1995. Prior to that employment, Mr. Robinson worked in the Mental Health Center in Jacksonville, Florida, as a discharge planner. Mr. Robinson knew Petitioner when they attended college. He considers Petitioner his friend and speaks highly of Petitioner's character. In addition, Mr. Robinson is familiar with Petitioner's work history and recommended that Petitioner receive a position at the Mental Health Center of Jacksonville, Florida, where Petitioner was employed from November 15, 1993 through November 30, 1995. Jane Escobar, M.S.W., Manager, Children's Department for the Mental Health Center of Jacksonville, Inc. refers to Petitioner's work history with that organization. Among the duties Petitioner performed with the organization was as an individual assigned to the Therapeutic Group Home within the Mental Health Center, in which position Petitioner worked with emotionally-disturbed children. This work entailed association with counseling groups, individual social skills training, chart documentation, and recreational activities. It also involved interaction with families and other treating professionals. Following receipt of his bachelor's degree, Petitioner was promoted to a position of mental-health counselor within the Mental Health Center, a position which required him to carry a case load of approximately 15-18 clinical cases, involving individual counseling with children, family work, and often involving seeing the children in their homes, as well as at their schools, and in his office. Petitioner left the position with Mental Health Center of Jacksonville in good standing to pursue a career-enhancing position. Ms. Escobar considers Petitioner to be a well-liked and a highly-respected clinician. Ms. Escobar indicates that the Mental Health Center would willingly return Petitioner to employment if a position were available at the Center. Mr. Val Thomas has written to commend Petitioner for his work as a counselor for Mr. Thomas' son. Mr. Thomas attributes Petitioner's good works for helping the Thomas family to correct problems which their son was having. Ms. Nancy Edmonds, a clinical social worker, speaks favorably of Petitioner, whom she has known in a professional and personal capacity for two years. She is impressed by Petitioner's moral character and finds Petitioner to be an understanding and caring person. She has found him capable of dealing with the most difficult circumstances in their work, without losing his composure. She finds that he works well with children and adolescents. Mr. Brian J. Maxson is the First Step Coordinator at Hubbard House, the facility in which Petitioner participated in group sessions concerning his conduct toward his wife, as a condition of his probation. Mr. Maxson confirms that Petitioner completed that program. At present, Petitioner works with AT&T in soliciting customers to use its services. He had held that position for two months when the hearing commenced.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting Petitioner an exemption from disqualification to work with children in positions of special trust. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 1996.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is required to repay $2,269.00 to the Respondent?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner entered into a "Noninstitutional Professional and Technical Medicaid Provider Agreement" (hereinafter referred to as the "Medicaid Provider Agreement") with the Respondent. Pursuant to the Medicaid Provider Agreement, the Petitioner agreed to participate in the Florida Medicaid Program. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Medicaid Provider Agreement, the Petitioner agreed to the following: The provider agrees to keep such records as are necessary to fully disclose the extent of services provided to individuals receiving assistance under the State Plan and agrees to furnish the State agency upon request such information regarding any payments claimed for providing these services. Access to these pertinent records and facilities by authorized Medicaid Program representatives will be permitted upon a reasonable request. The Petitioner also agreed in the Medicaid Provider Agreement to submit claims under the Medicaid Provider Agreement in accordance with the Florida Medicaid Program and applicable "Florida Administrative Rules, Florida Statutes, policies, procedures, manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program and Federal laws and regulations." Paragraphs 3 and 7 of the Medicaid Provider Agreement. Medicaid is essentially a mechanism by which the federal government provides funds for the payment of a part of certain medical service costs to the State of Florida. It is a federal grant under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. In Florida, community mental health services provided to persons eligible for Medicaid coverage can be paid for under the Medicaid program. Generally, the federal government provides 56 percent of the costs of Medicaid services and the State is responsible for 44 percent. As eligible services are rendered federal Medicaid funds are received and deposited in the Medical Care Trust Fund. In order for services to constitute "eligible services" they must have been rendered in compliance with Chapter 10C-7, Florida Administrative Code. If services are not "eligible services" (they do not comply with Chapter 10C-7), the State is not entitled to receive federal Medicaid funds. In order to insure that providers of Medicaid services are providing "eligible services" the Respondent conducts compliance audits. The purpose of compliance audits is to determine if federal Medicaid funds have been properly received. On June 27, 1985, the Respondent's Medicaid Program auditors conducted a compliance audit of the records of the Petitioner pertaining to Medicaid clients of the Petitioner's Bristol office. As a result of the June 27, 1985 audit, the Respondent determined that the Petitioner had improperly submitted claims for Medicaid care and that such claims had been improperly paid by the Respondent. The parties stipulated that the Petitioner was paid $2,269.00 for claims for which there was insufficient documentation to warrant payment under Chapter 10C-7, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner claimed $2,269.00 as an amount due for Medicaid "eligible services" and was so paid by the Respondent. In fact, however, the services were not Medicaid "eligible services." The State was not entitled to federal Medicaid funds for these services. The Petitioner improperly received the amount in controversy because the Petitioner did not comply with Chapter 10C-7, Florida Administrative Code, as it was required to do pursuant to the Medicaid Provider Agreement. On May 21, 1985, the Petitioner executed an "Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Services Contract Between State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Apalachee Community Mental Health Services, Inc." (hereinafter referred to as the "Provider Contract"). The Provider Contract was executed by the Respondent on June 11, 1985. Pursuant to the Provider Contract, the Petitioner agreed to provide alcohol, drug abuse and mental health services in eight designated counties. In paragraph IC4 of the Provider Contract, the Petitioner was required to comply with Chapters 394, 396 and 397, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 10E-13 and 10E-14, Florida Administrative Code, "as appropriate." 15. Paragraph IC5 of the Provider Contract also required the Petitioner to "comply with all other applicable state standards, provided they are specified in Florida Statutes or Administrative Rules established by the department or made known in writing to the contractor." Paragraph IE1 and 2 of the Provider Contract required that the Petitioner "participate in the Community Mental Health/Alcohol Services Program as defined in Section 10C-7.525, F.A.C." and that the Petitioner "pursue and submit vouchers on all Medicaid eligible clients for Medicaid eligible services." [Emphasis added]. Paragraph IG1 of the Provider Contract required the Petitioner to provide an annual audit report by an independent certified public accountant to the Respondent. Paragraph IH of the Provider Contract required the Petitioner to permit monitoring for compliance with state and federal rules and regulations. Paragraph IIA1 of the Provider Contract provided that the Respondent will pay up to 75 percent of approved costs as determined under Chapters 394 and 397, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10E-14, Florida Administrative Code, in an amount not to exceed $4,096,175.00. Paragraph IO of the Provider Contract required that the Petitioner secure "local match." Pursuant to the Provider Contract the Petitioner is entitled to receive payment for eligible expenditures" up to the amount of the Provider Contract and subject to the availability of funds. Services to be paid for pursuant to the Provider Contract include Medicaid eligible services and non-Medicaid services. Even though the Petitioner did not provide "eligible services" the amount in controversy may have been an "eligible expenditure" for which it may receive payment at a later date. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to payment of the amount in controversy will be determined at a later date as a result of the financial audit required by paragraph IGI of the Provider Agreement and will depend on the availability of funds and whether the Petitioner has already received the maximum amount specified in the Provider Contract. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to ultimate payment of the amount in controversy at a later date is governed by Chapters 394 and 397, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 10E-13 and 10E-14, Florida Administrative Code. A dispute arose between certain medical health providers and the Respondent over whether Medicaid funds are considered "state funds" for which local match is required pursuant to Chapter 394, Florida Statutes. The Department took the position that Medicaid funds are considered state funds and thus require local match and are subject to audit pursuant to Chapter 10E-13, Florida Administrative Code. When the dispute arose, the Respondent developed an "Issue Paper" (Petitioner's exhibit 2). The Respondent adopted one of the alternatives recommended in the Issue Paper to treat Medicaid funds as state funds for which local match is required. The Respondent also took the position that Medicaid eligible services were subject to the provisions of Chapter 394, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10E, Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent's decision to treat Medicaid funds as state funds subject to local match was challenged by the Florida Council for Community Mental Health, Inc. Florida Council for Community Mental Health, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 8 FALR 756 (Feb. 6, 1986). The issue in that case was whether the position of the Respondent taken in the Issue Paper was a rule.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner repay the Respondent $2,269.00 for services improperly billed. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1500 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1381 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been generally noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding RO Number of Acceptance of Fact Number or Reason for Rejection 1 RO 15-16. RO 17-19. The first and second sentences incorrectly refer to Paragraph I(C)(6) of the Medicaid Provider Agreement. The correct paragraphs are 1(0)4 (first sentence) and 1(0)5 (second sentence). The following portion of the second sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence: "or incorporated as part of the contract. The following portion of the third sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence: "and HRS Manual 230-31. The first sentence is accepted in RO 28. The rest of this proposed finding of fact is generally accepted in RO 28. 4-5 These proposed findings of fact are too broad and are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant and not supported by the weight of the evidence. Too broad and not supported by the weight of the evidence. See RO 28. Too broad and not supported by the weight of the evidence. See RO 30. 9-17 These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. Additionally, the third and fourth sentences of paragraph 16 are not supported by the weight of the evidence. RO 6. RO 9. The last sentence is irrelevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1 RO 1-3. 2 RO 10. 3 RO 11. 4 RO 12-13 5 Hereby accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Ronald W. Brooks, Esquire Brooks, LeBoeuf & LeBoeuf 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact In December, 1984, Petitioner, a black female, began employment with the Respondent. The Petitioner was hired for two positions. In one position, the Petitioner was employed as a (40 percent FTE) Cook, working 40 percent of a full time 40 hour work week, or 16 hours weekly. In the other position, the Petitioner was employed as an "on-call" Mental Health Technician I. The Mental Health Technician employment was an OPS (other personnel services) position with no regularly scheduled working hours. Her place of employment was the geriatric residential treatment system (GRTS) center at Bristol, Florida. On July 11, 1986, the Petitioner was transferred from the OPS Mental Health Technician position to a (50 percent FTE) Mental Health Technician position. In the new position, which entailed completion of a six month probationary period, the Petitioner worked 50 percent of a full time 40 hour work week, or 20 hours weekly. Combined with the job as Cook, Petitioner was employed for 36 hours weekly. At some point prior to the end of 1986, the Petitioner wrote to Ronald Kirkland, executive director for the Respondent. The Petitioner apparently felt that she was the subject of discrimination. The Petitioner demanded that Mr. Kirkland meet with her. She was advised to proceed in accordance with the Apalachee Center's personnel grievance procedure. Assistance in filing a grievance was offered to her, but she refused and continued to demand that Mr. Kirkland personally meet with her. The demand was rejected. In January, 1987, the Petitioner was informed that her job performance in the Mental Health Technician position was not satisfactory. At a meeting, held January 20, 1987, the Petitioner was given a memorandum (dated January 12, 1987) detailing a number of issues which were the basis for her unsatisfactory evaluation. (R-1) Such issues generally included disagreements over working hours, noncooperation with coworkers and abusiveness towards the Program Supervisor. The Petitioner acknowledged the memorandum, and stated that she believed it to be "unreasonable." Due to the unsatisfactory nature of her performance, the probationary period was extended for three months. At the end of the three month extension, in April, 1987, she was again evaluated. She received an above satisfactory evaluation in all categories except attitude, which was satisfactory. By March, 1987, the Respondent had determined that problems existed with the day treatment program at the Bristol GRTS facility and began planning to fully evaluate the operation. The Petitioner was working in the day treatment program. Laura Harris, Day Treatment Coordinator for the Respondent, was assigned to perform the review by Dr. William Perry, Respondent's Director of Geriatric Services. The process began in April, 1987. The staff of the Bristol GRTS facility was notified that the review was being performed and that Ms. Harris would be visiting at specific times to observe their performance. Ms. Harris requested that each day treatment staff person prepare four activities for GRTS clients and attempted to schedule times to observe the staff's presentation of the activities. The Petitioner failed to respond to Ms. Harris' request and did not schedule activity observation sessions. Eventually, Ms. Harris attended one of the Petitioner's activities periods without providing advance notice. Other day treatment staff were responsive to Ms. Harris' requests and cooperated with her suggestions. The Petitioner was not cooperative. The review period continued through August, 1987. On May 5, 1987, the Petitioner resigned from her position as Cook, effective May 18, 1987, and advised her program supervisor that she was available for additional employment as an OPS Mental Health Technician. The Petitioner's requested additional employment would have been during the evening, night and weekend shifts. The request was based on the departure, several weeks earlier, of the person employed as the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Mental Health Technician. The 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift is less popular and more difficult to staff than other work periods. Janey Hall, a black female, is the Bristol GRTS supervisor responsible for securing staff coverage for the evening shifts. The OPS evening shift assignments were generally rotated among staff members. However, due to the difficulty in staffing the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift, Ms. Hall proposed assigning the coverage to a single individual. The proposal was approved by the Bristol GRTS program supervisor and by Dr. Perry. Ms. Hall selected Penny Mize, a white female, to work the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift until a permanent employee was hired for the shift. Ms. Mize began working the shift immediately upon the departure of the former employee. There were occasions when black employees filled in for Ms. Mize. As to the Petitioner's request for additional employment hours, the Respondent's supervisory staff was concerned about the Petitioner's ability to successfully respond to the demands of evening, night and weekend shifts. Those shifts provide less supervision of employees than does the day shift. Due to previously noted problems with the Petitioner's job performance, as reported to Dr. William Perry, it was determined that the Petitioner required greater supervision than was available to her on the OPS shifts. Accordingly, her request for additional OPS hours was rejected on May 13, 1987, by Dr. Perry. On May 21, 1987, the Petitioner filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations, FCHR No. 87-3619, alleging that the denial of her request for OPS hours as a Mental Health Technician was based on racial discrimination. The Petitioner alleged that Ms. Mize, a white employee, was permitted to work the additional hours, 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. There was no evidence presented by the Petitioner which would indicate that the denial of her request for the additional hours was racially motivated or based on any factor other than her job performance and the decision to limit her employment to more closely supervised shifts. Subsequent to the Petitioner's filing of FCHR 87-3619, Laura Harris completed the review of the Bristol GRTS facility. Based upon her review she prepared an evaluation of the Petitioner's job performance and a corrective action plan which specified steps the Petitioner was directed to complete in order to continue her employment and improve her job skills, both dated August 26, 1987. (R-3, R-4). The evaluation was severely critical of the Petitioner's attitude, and her unwillingness to work towards improving her interaction with co-workers and facility clients. The evaluation recommended that her employment "be terminated immediately". The Petitioner received the documents on September 10, 1987. Her written comments on the documents indicate that she disputed Ms. Harris' evaluation, and noted that she alone was being required to comply with the corrective action plan. However, the plan was related to the lack of effort and cooperation the Petitioner demonstrated during the Harris review. Other employees, black and white, were cooperative and no other corrective action plans were necessary. During the summer of 1987, the Respondent determined that additional assistance in providing nursing services to Bristol GRTS clients was required. The Respondent initiated establishment of a part-time Licensed Practical Nurse position and decided to delete the Petitioner's Mental Health Technician position to fund the new LPN. On October 15, 1987, the Petitioner was advised by Dr. Perry that the Mental Health Technician position was being eliminated to provide for the LPN position. Dr. Perry proposed to the Petitioner that she accept a position as Cook which would provide 32 hours weekly employment. The Petitioner's period of employment as Cook had been satisfactory. The Petitioner did not agree or refuse to accept the position, but said she would consider it. On October 26, 1987, Laura Harris prepared a follow-up evaluation to the corrective action plan of August 26, 1988. Ms. Harris noted improvement in the Petitioner's performance, although there were substantial problems remaining. Apparently, unaware that the Petitioner's Mental Health Technician position was being eliminated to provide for an LPN position, Ms. Harris recommended that the Petitioner be reevaluated on November 30, 1987. On October 27, 1987, Dr. Perry contacted the Petitioner and informed her that she would be transferred to the Cook's position and that her salary as Cook would remain at the same level as her Mental Health Technician salary, causing no reduction in her rate of pay as could have occurred. The following day, Dr. Perry met with the Petitioner and reiterated the proposal. There was no response from the Petitioner. On November 12, 1987, Dr. Perry delivered a letter, dated November 2, 1987, from Mr. Kirkland, executive director of the Respondent, confirming the prior discussions between Dr. Perry and the Petitioner. The letter stated that her employment as Mental Health Technician would cease on November 12, 1987, and that she would be paid for two additional weeks in lieu of notice. Alternatively, the letter stated that she could begin employment in the Cook's position on November 13, 1987. At the time the letter was delivered, the Petitioner stated that, due to the lack of child care availability, she could not begin the Cook's job on November 13. Dr. Perry suggested she begin on November 16, but the Petitioner refused. The Petitioner's employment at the Bristol GRTS facility concluded on November 12, 1987. In December, 1987, she filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations, FCHR 88-1288, alleging that the elimination of her position as Mental Health Technician was in retaliation for the filing of her earlier complaint. There was no evidence that the Respondent's decision to employ an LPN instead of a Mental Health Technician was in retaliation for the earlier complaint or based on any consideration other than to better provide nursing care to the elderly clients of the Bristol GRTS facility. The evidence indicates that the decision to eliminate the Petitioner's position, rather than the position of another Mental Health Technician, was based on the Petitioner's poor job performance during the Harris evaluation period and was made without regard to the earlier complaint. Although at the hearing, the Petitioner repeatedly accused the Respondent's witnesses of perjured testimony, there is no evidence to support the accusation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter final orders dismissing the Complaints and Petitions for Relief in FCHR Cases No. 87-3619 and 88-1288. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 1988.
Findings Of Fact In 1993, the US Health Care Financing Administration gave Respondent approval to design and implement a pilot program for the delivery of mental health services in part of Florida. The pilot program is limited to Medicaid Area 6, which consists of Hardee, Highlands, Hillsborough, Manatee, and Polk counties. The purpose of the pilot program is to change the way in which the State of Florida pays for mental health services under the Medicaid program. At present, the State makes "fee-for- service" payments based on predetermined fees for defined services. RFP, 1.1 KK. Under the new method, the State will make "capitation" payments consisting of a monthly fee paid in advance to the contractor for each enrolled Medicaid recipient, regardless whether the enrollee receives the services during the payment period. RFP, 1.1.H. On November 23, 1994, Respondent issued Request for Proposals 9501 (RFP). The purpose of RFP 9501 is to procure a contract with a "single, comprehensive mental health care provider on a prepaid, capitated basis, to provide mental health benefits to Medicaid recipients who are residents of Medicaid Area 6 . . .." RFP, 1.4. The second paragraph of RFP 1.4 identifies four goals of the procurement: that the procurement proceed in a timely manner, (2) that the . . . RFP . . . encourages free and open competition, (3) that the procurement effort and resulting new contract operations be completed in a timely manner without disruption of service to Medicaid clients, and (4) that the procure- ment result in a single contractor for Area 6 with sufficient resources to provide services to all AFDC related and SSI Without Medicare Medicaid eligibles in Area 6. Section 2.2 requires that the contractor provide "[i]npatient hospital care for psychiatric conditions," "[o]utpatient hospital care for psychiatric conditions," "[p]sychiatric physician services," "[c]ommunity mental health care," "Mental Health Targeted Case Management," and "Mental Health Intensive Case Management." Section 2.3 defines the six categories of services identified in the preceding paragraph. Referring to "Community mental health care" as "Community Mental Health Services," Section 2.3 states: Community Mental Health Services Community Mental Health Services are rehabil- itative services which are psychiatric in nature, rendered or recommended by a psychia- trist; or medical in nature, rendered or recommended by a psychiatrist or other physician. Such services must be provided in accordance with the policy and service provision specified in the Community Mental Health Services Provider Handbook. The term "Community Mental Health Services" is not intended to suggest that the following services must be provided by state funded "Community Mental Health Centers" or to preclude state funded "Community Mental Health Centers" from providing these services: There are eight categories of mental health care services provided under community mental health: Treatment planning and review; Evaluation and testing services; Counseling, therapy and treatment services provided by a psychiatrist or physician; Counseling, therapy and treatment services provided by a direct service mental health care provider; Rehabilitative services; Children's mental health services; Specialized therapeutic foster care, Level 1 and 2; and Day treatment programs. Community mental health services for children in specialized therapeutic foster care and resi- dential treatment will be provided by HRS District 6 Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program Office to the same degree as in the past. Services are limited to those covered services provided by or under the recommendation of a psychiatrist or physician and related to a plan of care provided or authorized by a psychiatrist or physician, as appropriate, based on the patient's diagnosis. Targeted Case Management The contractor shall adhere to the requirements of the Medicaid Case Management Services Provider Handbook, but will not be required to seek certifications from the HRS Districts' Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program Office in regard to clients, agency designation, or mental health care case manager qualifications. Case manager training materials will be made available through the agency for reproduction by the contractor. Intensive Case Management This is a new mandatory service which is intended to provide intensive, team case management to highly recidivistic persons who have severe and persistent mental illness. Section 2.5 requires that the contractor "adhere to the following minimum staffing, availability, and access standards": The contractor shall provide access to medically necessary mental health care (with the exceptions noted in section 2.4 B.) The contractor shall make available and accessible facilities, service locations, and service sites and personnel sufficient to provide the covered services (specifically, non-hospital outpatient, emergency and assessment services) throughout the geographic area, within thirty minutes typical travel time by public or private transportation of all enrolled recipients. (The typical travel time standard does not apply to waiting time for public transportation--it applies only to actual time in transit.) The contractor must allow enrollees to choose one of the capitated services, as provided in Section 5.1 F.1., when the plan offers another service, not reimbursed under the contract, as a downward substitution. The maximum amount of time between an enrollee's request for mental health services and the first point of service shall be as follows: For emergency mental health services as defined in section 1.1 BB., service shall be immediate. For persons initially perceived to need emergency mental health services, but upon assess- ment do not meet the criteria for emergency care, they are deemed to require crisis support and services must be provided within twenty-three hours. For routine outpatient intake, assessment shall be offered within seven calendar days. Follow-up service shall be offered within fourteen calendar days after assessment. Minimum staffing standards shall be as follows, and failure to adhere to these staffing standards, or the staffing standards indicated in the winning proposal, whichever are greater, may result in termination of the contract (if the contractor's "staff" person does not fill one of the "key staff" positions listed on page 81, the staff persons may be a subcontractor.): * * * The contractor's outpatient staff shall include at least one FTE direct service mental health care provider per 1,500 prepaid members. The Agency expects the contractor's staffing pattern for direct service providers to reflect the ethnic and racial composition of the community. The contractor's array of direct service mental health care providers for adults and children must include providers that are licensed or eligible for licensure, and demonstrate two years of clinical experience in the following specialty areas: Adoption, Separation and loss, Victims and perpetrators of sexual abuse, Victims and perpetrators of physical abuse, Court ordered evaluations, and Expert witness testimony. Mental health care case managers shall not be counted as direct service mental health care providers. The contractor shall provide Spanish speaking and Spanish literate direct service providers at each service location at which there are Spanish speaking enrollees. The contractor shall provide staff approp- riately trained and experienced to provide psychological testing. The contractor shall provide staff approp- riately trained and experienced to provide rehabilitation and support services to persons with severe and persistent mental illness. For all persons meeting the criteria for case management as specified in the Medicaid Case Management Provider Handbook, the contractor shall adhere to the staffing ratio of at least 1 FTE mental health care case manager per 20 children, and at least 1 FTE mental health care case manager per 40 adults. Direct service mental health care providers shall not be counted as mental health care case managers. * * * Section 2.10 provides, in part: The contractor shall be responsible for the coordination and management of mental health care and continuity of care for all enrolled Medicaid recipients through the following minimum functions: A. Minimizing disruption to the enrollee as a result of any change in service providers or mental health care case manager occurring as a result of the awarding of this contract. An offeror may not propose rates exceeding Medicaid's upper payment limit, which "is that amount which would have been paid, on an aggregate basis, by Medicaid under fee-for-service for the same services to a demographically similar population of recipients." 4.11. Section 1.1 TTT defines "Upper Payment Limit" similarly: "The maximum amount Medicaid will pay on a capitated basis for any group of services, based upon fee-for- service Medicaid expenditures for those same services." Section 4.11 sets the range of payment rates at 92-98 percent of the upper payment limit. Each offeror is required to propose a specific payment percentage within the range. Section 4.17 allows offerors to propose a risk corridor of up to 16 percentage points plus and minus the proposed range. The corridor must be equal above and below the capitation rate. The RFP illustrates the risk corridor by applying an 8 point corridor to a 95 percent capitation rate. In this case, the contractor absorbs any plan costs up to 4 percent over the actual payments made to the plan by Respondent or retains any excess plan payments up to 4 percent over the actual costs. Beyond the corridor, the contractor and Respondent share equally in the costs or savings, subject to Respondent's upper payment limit. In no event, however, shall the contractor be entitled to payment from Respondent for "start- up" or "phase-down" costs. Section 4.18 addresses subcontractors: The contractor is fully responsible for all work performed under the contract resulting from the RFP. The contractor may, with the consent of the agency, enter into written subcontract(s) for performance of certain of its functions under the contract. The contractor must have subcontracts with all administrative and service providers who are not salaried employees of the plan prior to the commencement of services under this contract. The contractor shall abide by the requirements of Section 1128A(b) of the Social Security Act prohibiting HMOs and other such providers from making payments directly or indirectly to a physician or other provider as an inducement to reduce or limit services provided to Medicaid enrollees. The contractor must submit signed subcontracts, for a complete provider network in order to obtain agency approval for operation in an area, within sixty days of the execution of this contract, for each proposed subcontracted service provider. Any additional subcontracts must be submitted to the agency twenty days prior to the subcontract effective date. Subcontracts must be approved in writing by the agency's Technical Project Manager prior to the effective date of any subcontract. No subcontract which the contractor enters into with respect to performance under the contract resulting from the RFP shall in any way relieve the contractor of any responsibility for performance of its duties. Amendments to subcontracts must be approved by the agency before taking effect. The contractor shall notify the agency in writing prior to termination of approved subcontracts. The contractor will agree to make payment to all subcontractors within 35 days of receipt of all invoices properly documented and submitted by the subcontractor to the plan. All subcontracts executed by the contractor under the resulting contract must meet the following requirements and be approved by the agency in advance of implementation. All subcontracts must adhere to the following requirements: Be in writing. Specify the functions of the subcontractor. Identify the population covered by the subcontract. Specify the amount, duration and scope of services to be provided by the subcontractor, including a requirement that the subcontractor continue to provide services through any post- insolvency period. Provide that the agency and DHHS may evaluate through inspection or other means the quality, appropriateness, and timeliness of services performed. Specify that the subcontractor has read and agreed to the subcontract and the service provision requirements under section 2 of RFP, for services to be provided under the subcontract, and to the contractor's admission and retention criteria for the services the subcontractor will provide as indicated in the subcontractor's response to section 5.1 F3.b,(5). Provide for inspections of any record pertinent to the contract by the agency and DHHS. Specify procedures and criteria for extension and renegotiation. Provide for prompt submission of information needed to make payment. Require an adequate record system be maintained for recording services, charges, dates and all other commonly accepted information elements for services rendered to recipients under the contract. Require that financial, administrative and medical records be maintained for a period of not less than five years from the close of the contract and retained further if the records are under review or audit until the review or audit is complete. Prior approval for the disposition of records must be requested and approved by the contractor if the subcontract is continuous. Require safeguarding of information about recipients according to 42 CFR, Part 431, Subpart F. Require an exculpatory clause, which survives the termination of the subcontract including breach of subcontract due to insolvency, that assures that recipients or the agency may not be held liable for any debts of the subcontractor. Provide for the monitoring of services rendered to recipients sponsored by the contractor. Specify the procedures, criteria and requirements for termination of the subcontract. Provide for the participation in any internal and external quality assurance, utilization review, peer review, and grievance procedures established by the contractor. Make full disclosure of the method and amount of compensation or other consideration to be received from the contractor. Provide for submission of all reports and clinical information required by the contractor. Make provisions for a waiver of terms of the subcontract, if appropriate. Contain no provision which provides incentive, monetary or otherwise, for the withholding of medically necessary care. Require adherence to the Medicaid policies expressed in applicable Medicaid provider handbooks. Require that the subcontractor secure and maintain during the life of the subcontract worker's compensation insurance for all of its employees connected with the work under this contract unless such employees are covered by the protection afforded by the provider. Such insurance shall comply with Florida's Workers' Compensation Law; and Contain a clause indemnifying, defending and holding the Agency and the plan members harmless from costs or expense, including court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the extent proximately caused by an negligent act or other wrongful conduct arising from the subcontract agreement. This clause must survive the termination of the subcontract, including breach due to insolvency. The contractor shall give the agency immediate notification in writing by certified mail of any action or suit filed and prompt notice of any claim made against the contractor by any subcontractor or vendor which in the opinion of the contractor may result in litigation related in any way to the contract with the agency. In the event of the filing of a petition in bankruptcy by or against a principal subcontractor or the insolvency of said subcontractor, the contractor shall immediately advise the agency. The contractor shall assure that all tasks related to the subcontract are performed in accordance with the terms of the contract. The contractor shall identify any aspect of service that may be further subcontracted by the subcon- tractor. Subcontractors shall not be considered agents of the agency. For evaluation purposes, the RFP divides proposals into two parts: technical and rate, including any rate corridor. The six categories under the technical part, with point values in parentheses, are: Management Summary (0 points), Organization and Corporate Capabilities (100 points), Proposed Staffing Pattern and Licensure of Staff and Facilities (250 points), Operational Functions (400 points), Mental Health Care Service Delivery (400 points), and Transition Workplan (100 points). RFP, 6.1. Section 5.1.C describes the 100-point Organization and Corporate Capabilities as follows: The proposer shall provide in this tab a descrip- tion of its organizational and corporate capabi- lities. The purpose of this section is to provide the agency with a basis for determining the contractor's, and its subcontractors', financial and technical capability for undertaking a project of this size. For the purpose of this tab, the term proposer shall refer to both the contractor and its major subcontractors. It does not refer to the plan's "parent company" unless specifically indicated. Section 5.1 D states the elements of the 250-point Proposed Staffing Pattern and Licensure of Staff and Facilities. Section 5.1 D.3 requires the offeror to disclose "actual and proposed" FTE professionals, including psychiatrists, case managers, psychologists, nurses, and social workers. Section 5.1D.4 requires the offeror to explain how the plan will allocate staff to meet various demands, such as for adoption, sexual and physical abuse counseling, and psychological testing of children. Section 5.1 D.5 requires the proposal to: Describe how the plan will ensure that it has the staff resources appropriately trained and experienced to provide rehabilitative and support services to low income adults with severe and persistent mental illness and, under separate heading, to children with severe and persistent mental illness. Denote the number and percent of total FTEs which will be filled by persons with this type of experience and who will be providing these types of services. Explain the contractor's rationale for the staffing levels indicated and provide a brief, one or two line, description of the training and exper- ience of such persons who will provide these services under the plan. Section 5.1.E describes the elements of the 400-point Operational Functions, in part, as follows: Within this tab, the proposer shall explicitly address its operational capacity to serve Medicaid recipients, and its previous history serving the Medicaid and other low income populations. Separately, the proposer shall address the member services the plan will offer, grievance procedures, quality assurance procedures, the contractor's proposed reporting systems, and the contractor's proposed handling of subcontracts. Service Area of Proposed Plan 42 CFR 434.36 Describe, for each county, how the proposer will meet throughout the lifetime of the contract the 30 minute typical travel time requirement specified in section 2.5 A.1. Describe, for each county, how the proposer will meet throughout the lifetime of the contract the 30 minute typical travel time requirement for child psychiatrists specified in Section 2.5 B.2. Describe, for each county, how the proposer will meet throughout the lifetime of the contract the 30 minute typical travel time requirement for adult psychiatrists specified in Section 2.5 B.1. * * * Section 5.1.F describes the 400-point Mental Health Care Service Delivery category. Section 5.1 F states, in relevant part: This section shall include a detailed discussion of the proposer's approach to providing mental health care. The proposer must be able to document a demonstrated ability to provide a comprehensive range of appropriate services for both children and adults who experience impairments ranging from mild to severe and persistent mental illness. Plans must provide services up to the limits specified by the RFP. They are encouraged to exceed these limits. However, in no instance may any service's limitations be more restrictive than those specified in the Florida Medicaid fee- for-service program. The plan cannot require payments from recipients for any mandatory services provided under this contract. Summary of Services * * * The following is a summary list of the services which may be provided . . . * * * Optional Services Crisis Stabilization Unit * * * z. Other Services (List) * * * Care Coordination 42 CFR 434.52; 10C-7.0524(16), F.A.C. Attach the plan's written protocol describing the plan's care coordination system, which should include the plan's approach to care coordination, utilization review, and assuring continuity of care, such as, verifying medical necessity, service planning, channeling to appropriate levels of treatment, and develop- ment of treatment alternatives when effective, less intensive services are unavailable. The protocol should also address the following questions: * * * 3. Indicate how the contractor will establish services in such a way as to minimize disruption of services, particularly to high risk populations currently served by the department, for children and, separately, for adults. * * * Section 6.3 describes the criteria for evaluating proposals. For Proposed Staffing Pattern and Licensure of Staff and Facilities, the evaluation criteria include, at 6.3 B.3.c: The ability of the proposer to ensure it has, and will continue to have, the resources necessary to provide mental health rehabilitation and support to children who are in the care and custody of the state or who have special needs, such as children who have been adopted or have been physically or sexually abused. About a year ago, Respondent issued RFP 9405, which also sought to procure mental health services on a capitated basis for Medicaid Area 6. Respondent received four proposals, which contained numerous deficiencies. Respondent later withdrew RFP 9405 for revisions to encourage more competition. Concerns over competition involve the role of Community Mental Health Centers (CMHC) in the procurement. CMHCs are publicly funded, not-for-profit entities that traditionally have provided five types of services: emergency, outpatient, day/night, inpatient, and prevention education. CMHCs now also operate crisis stabilization units and supply case management services, as well as specialized children's services, services for aged persons with severe and persistent mental illness, and services for persons with alcohol or drug dependencies. The RFP calls for a wide range of mental health care services, only part of which are community mental health services or other services presently provided by CMHCs. However, CMHCs constitute the only available network of existing providers of community mental health services to Medicaid clients in Medicaid Area 6. Medicaid payments account for about 30 percent of the revenue of Area 6 CMHCs. In late 1992, six CMHCs in Area 6 formed Florida Behavioral Health, Inc. in response to competition from one or more other provider networks, such as Charter. The competitive network of six CMHCs consisted of Manatee Glens Corp., Mental Health Care, Inc., Northside Mental Health Hospital, Peace River Center for Personal Development, Inc., Winter Haven Hospital, and Mental Health Services. Although the six CMHCs are not all of the CMHCs in Area 6, they provide nearly all of the community mental health services to Medicaid clients in Area 6. By early 1993, Florida Behavioral Health, Inc. formed Florida Health Partnership with Options Mental Health, Inc., which is a managed-care provider owned by First Hospital Corporation--a behavioral health management company. With the assistance of Florida Health Partnership, Options Mental Health, Inc. submitted a proposal in response to RFP 9405. An oral or written agreement between Florida Behavioral Health, Inc. and Options Mental Health, Inc. prohibited the six CMHCs from assisting any entity but Options Mental Health, Inc. in responding to RFP 9405. This agreement continues to prohibit the six CMHCs from assisting any entity but Options Mental Health, Inc. in responding to the RFP. The six CMHCs have shared with Options Mental Health, Inc. cost and utilization information. The importance of the unpublished cost information is unclear, and Petitioner has not yet made a public records request to obtain this information. The same is true of unpublished utilization information, which includes information on waiting lists for community mental health services. Any delay in providing community mental health services would have a bearing on the projected demand and thus the cost of a capitated plan. After withdrawing RFP 9405, Respondent revisited the requirement that offerors propose an existing network of providers. In an effort to encourage competition, Respondent deleted a requirement in RFP 9405 that proposals contain existing provider networks. Respondent substituted a requirement that proposals describe provider networks generally, without necessarily including names of subcontractors. Petitioner did not prove any fraudulent, illegal, arbitrary, or dishonest act by Respondent. The main thrust of Petitioner's case is that the effect of the RFP is illegal or arbitrary. Petitioner asserts that the RFP requires a sole source provider or, at minimum, precludes free and open competition. Petitioner argues that the RFP illegally and arbitrarily favors offerors of CMHCs, in partnership with CMHCs, or with subcontracts with CMHCs. Through testimony and argument, Petitioner asserts that various provisions of the RFP either exacerbate or fail to ameliorate the advantages enjoyed by CMHCs, especially due to RFP requirements of implementation of the new provider network in 60 days and with minimal disruption to Medicaid clients. RFP 1.4(2) encourages open and free competition. RFP 2.3 D disclaims any intent that only CMHCs may supply community mental health services. Petitioner's chief witness, Dr. Ronald Mihalick, testified that RFP 2.3 D favors CMHCs because state regulations have designated them the sole provider of community mental health services and government grants have funded their capital expenditures. Neither Dr. Mihalick, Petitioner's other witness, nor Petitioner's counsel has suggested a practical means by which to eliminate this advantage of CMHCs, which cannot, by executive or legislative fiat, be stripped of their buildings, equipment, or experienced staffs, nor of the advantages that may accrue to them by virtue of such assets. It would be counterproductive to eliminate CMHCs from direct or indirect participation in the subject procurement. Nor is Respondent required, if it were legally able, to assign to CMHCs the status of universal providers in order to eliminate illegality or arbitrariness from the RFP. The RFP seeks a broad range of mental health services, of which a substantial part are community mental health services. RFP 2.3 D represents a simple description of community mental health services and expressly negates the inference that only CMHCs may provide such services. RFP 2.3 E and F describes two of the five categories of mental health services: targeted case management and intensive case management, respectively. Intensive case management is a new service, and nothing suggests that Area 6 CMHCs have any direct experience that would give them an advantage in providing this new service, Targeted case management is an existing service provided by CMHCs. There is some doubt whether the RFP provides detailed cost information, including information about targeted case management. However, Petitioner has never made a public records request for such information from any of the CMHCs or Respondent. In any event, Petitioner has hardly presented sufficient evidence regarding targeted case management that the inclusion of such a service in the RFP is arbitrary or illegal. RFP 2.5 prescribes standards for minimum staffing, availability, and access. The minimum staffing standards do not require that existing service providers supply the specified services. For instance, "direct service mental health care providers" must be "licensed or eligible for licensure," as provided in RFP 2.5 B.3.a. Petitioner's objection is that the RFP expresses staffing standards in accordance with Medicaid guidelines, under which the CMHCs are already operating. This objection is puzzling because the procurement is for Medicaid services. In any event, the presence of such a provision does not render the RFP illegal or arbitrary for the reasons already stated. RFP 2.5 B.4 requires staffing ratios of one fulltime equivalency (FTE) per 20 mental health care case managers for children and one FTE per 40 mental health care case managers for adults. Again, though, the RFP does not require that such case managers must be currently employed by a CMHC or even currently providing such services. Petitioner legitimately objects to specifications expressed in terms of FTEs when applied to non-administrative services. The use of FTEs applies to fulltime employees, not to individual therapists who may see Medicaid clients on an occasional basis. The requirement that non-administrative services be expressed in FTEs unduly emphasizes process over product or outcome and is inconsistent with the spirit of the RFP. However, the use of FTEs in RFP 2.5 B.4 does not rise to the level of arbitrariness or illegality. As Respondent's chief witness, Marilyn Reeves, testified, an offeror may convert individual therapists to FTEs, even though the contractor may bear the risk of a faulty conversion formula. RFP 2.10 requires that the contractor implement the new capitated plan with minimal disruption to Medicaid clients, whose mental conditions may worsen from such disruption. Petitioner does not challenge this sensible provision. Petitioner instead argues that other pro-CMHC provisions preclude the implementation of a new plan with minimal disruption. Petitioner has failed to prove that the pro-CMHC provisions, except for 4.18 as discussed below, necessitate more than minimal disruption during the transition. RFP 4.17 provides that Respondent shall not pay the contractor's start-up or phase-down costs. Petitioner's objection is that government grants have paid for the capital expenditures of the CMHCs. For the reasons discussed in connection with RFP 2.3 D, Petitioner has failed to prove how this provision is arbitrary or illegal. RFP 5.1 D assigns 250 points for the proposed staffing pattern and requires the offeror to disclose "actual and proposed" FTE professionals, such as psychiatrists, case managers, and social workers. An offeror that has already identified its personnel may be able to provide a more detailed description and earn more points than another offeror that has yet to find its subcontractors. Likewise, RFP 5.1 D.5 requires a discussion of FTEs, although an offeror with as yet unidentified subcontractors probably can satisfy this section with a more generic discussion and not lose points. In any event, to the extent that the specification in terms of FTEs favors CMHCs, such a provision is not so onerous or unnecessary as to be arbitrary or illegal, as discussed in connection with 2.5 B.4. RFP 5.1 E assigns 400 points for operational functions and requires the offeror to "explicitly address its operational capacity to serve Medicaid recipients, and its previous history serving the Medicaid and other low income populations." Unlike RFP 5.1 C, which requires a proposal to address the contractor and its "major subcontractors," 5.1 E does not mention subcontractors, so this provision favors CMHCs even less than the other provisions of 5 and 6. Perhaps for this reason, neither Petitioner's witnesses nor Petitioner's proposed recommended order addressed RFP 5.1 E. RFP 5.1 F requires an offeror to provide a "detailed discussion," in which it shall "document a demonstrated ability to provide a comprehensive range of appropriate services . . .." An offeror with as yet unidentified subcontractors will likely be unable to supply nearly as much detail as an offeror with subcontractors already in place, but this provision would, if challenged, not be deemed arbitrary or illegal. However, Petitioner challenges only RFP 5.1 F.1 (Optional Services) and 5.1 F.4.a.3. Section 5.1 F.4.a.3 reiterates the requirement that the new capitated plan be implemented so as to "minimize disruption of services." As noted above, Petitioner of course does not object to this requirement, but uses it to show how other provisions are arbitrary or illegal. Petitioner objects to the portion of 5.1 F.1 identifying crisis stabilization units as an Optional Service. Although only CMHCs are licensed to operate crisis stabilization units, the same services are available from other sources, although often not as economically. Moreover, the crisis stabilization unit is only an Optional Service, which Respondent mentioned only for illustrative purposes. The last-cited option, "Other Services (List)," encourages offerors to devise creative options that may not involve such traditional providers as crisis stabilization units. RFP 6.3 B.3.c requires the offeror to ensure that "it has, and will continue to have, the resources necessary to provide mental health rehabilitation and support . . .." Satisfaction of the criteria of 6.3 B, like 5.1 C, D, and F, is easier for CMHCs and harder for contractors with as yet unidentified subcontractors. However, the advantage conferred upon CMHCs is not so great as to render 6.3 B arbitrary or illegal. To varying degrees, RFP 5.1 D.5, E.1, and F.1 (Optional Services) and 6.3 B.3.c prefer CMHCs or offerors affiliated with CMHCs. These provisions potentially conflict with the RFP provisions encouraging free and open competition and prohibiting more than minimal disruptions in service. The potential conflicts are partially attenuated by the ability of an offeror, prior to submitting a proposal, to identify subcontractors that may provide similar services to non-Medicaid clients or provide similar services to Medicaid clients in other areas of Florida or other states. RFP 5.1 D.5, E.1, and F.1 (Optional Services) and 6.3B impose qualitative standards upon the contractor and any subcontractors, whose employees have direct contact with the Medicaid clients. Non-CMHC offerors may nonetheless be able to identify, at the proposal stage, their subcontractors so as to earn the maximum points in these categories. For instance, offerors may find non-CMHC subcontractors providing community mental health services to non- Medicaid clients or to Medicaid clients elsewhere in Florida or the United States. With greater difficulty, non-CMHC offerors with as yet unidentified subcontractors may be able to project, at the proposal stage, features of their subcontractors. They may not be able to score as well as CMHCs and other offerors with already identified networks of community mental health service providers. However, to the extent that non-CMHCs are disadvantaged by these provisions, Petitioner has not shown that the inclusion of these provisions is arbitrary or illegal. These provisions ensure the delivery of quality mental health services. As likely as not, Petitioner has included these provisions after careful consideration of the benefits of further competitiveness and the costs of further limitations upon the participation of CMHCs. The final provision challenged by Petitioner is RFP 4.18, which acknowledges that the contractor may not itself provide the mental health services, but may contract with subcontractors for the provision of these services. Requiring that the contractor have subcontracts prior to the commencement of services under the new capitated plan, Section 4.18 adds that the contractor must submit for Respondent's written approval: signed subcontracts, for a complete provider network in order to obtain agency approval for operation in an area, within sixty days of the execution of this contract, for each proposed subcontracted service provider. Petitioner's challenge to RFP 2.3 D, E, and F; 2.5 A and B.3 and 4; and 4.17 fails because these provisions confer upon CMHCs an insignificant advantage, an advantage upon that could not be removed without eliminating CMHCs from the procurement, or an advantage while specifying an important substantive requirement. Petitioner's challenge to RFP 5.1 D.5, 5.1 E.1, 5.1F.1, and 6.3 B.3.c fails because these provisions, even if conferring significant advantages upon CMHCs, impose important qualitative requirements upon the delivery of mental health services to Medicaid clients. However, RFP 4.18 is different from these other provisions. It does not involve the actual delivery of mental health services to Medicaid clients. Section 4.18 dictates only how long after signing the contract with Respondent the contractor has to implement the new capitation contract. The advantage conferred by 4.18 upon CMHCs is neither trivial nor necessary. The federal waiver runs two years from the actual start-up date of the new capitation plan. Obviously, an inordinate delay in implementation might suggest that the contractor is unable to do the job, but nothing in the record suggests that 60 days marks the beginning of an inordinate delay. Respondent understandably wants to get the pilot project started quickly, presumably in anticipation of important cost savings. But these considerations do not rise to the importance of other provisions involving the actual delivery of mental health services to Medicaid clients. Non-CMHCs, especially offerors with as yet unidentified subcontractors, face a considerable task in plan implementation. For this procurement, only one offeror will have the assistance of the CMHCs, which gives that offeror a clear advantage in at least the community mental health and targeted case management categories. There is no good reason to increase this advantage by imposing an unrealistically short implementation timeframe on contractors. On the other hand, there are two reasons why the 60-day implementation timeframe is arbitrary and illegal: it conflicts with RFP provisions encouraging open competition and it conflicts with RFP provisions prohibiting more than a minimal disruption to clients. The new capitation plan represents a marked departure from past practice. The successful contractor is assuming considerable financial risks when it sets its fees and risk corridor, if any. This risk is spread over a wide geographic area containing some of Florida's most densely populated areas. Anticipated cost savings to the State may result in narrowed profit margins before the contractor can safely realize savings from reductions in the cost of mental health services provided to Medicaid clients. The success of the capitation plan is jeopardized if the contractor underestimates the revenue needed for the successful operation of the plan. The offeror without subcontractors at the time of submitting a proposal needs time to enlist the cooperation of CMHCs or other subcontractors. A witness of Respondent described a possible scenario in which CMHCs declined to cooperate with the contractor and were forced to terminate employees. Although these employees would be available to the contractor, they would not likely be available in a 60-day timeframe. A multitude of tasks confront the non-CMHC contractor, especially if the contractor does not have a subcontractor network in place when submitting the proposal. Not surprisingly, Respondent's witnesses did not offer a spirited defense of the 60-day implementation timeframe, as is partly illustrated by the following testimony of Respondent's chief witness: Q: Is there a reason that the language on Page 61 says "must have signed subcontract within 60 days?" A: No. What it is trying to get at there is that if you are going to start being operational within 60 days, you got to know that you got to get those subcontracts approved by us prior to being able to do that. Respondent's witness readily testified that the deadline would not be enforced, if the enforcement jeopardized the welfare of the Medicaid clients. Of course, given the vulnerability of the clients, Respondent would not require the implementation of an unfinished plan at the end of the contractual implementation timeframe, regardless of the duration of the implementation timeframe. But a rational deadline for implementation would not so readily invite discussions of waivers and extensions. The presence of an impractical deadline misleads offerors. Some offerors may obtain an unfair advantage by structuring their proposals without regard to the implementation timeframe, secure in the knowledge that it will not be enforced. Other offerors may limit Optional Services or avoid more creative delivery or administrative programs in order to ensure that their plans can be implemented within the arbitrarily short implementation timeframe. To eliminate arbitrary and illegal conflicts with other RFP provisions encouraging open competition and prohibiting more than minimal disruptions in service, the implementation timeframe of 60 days must be extended to at least 120 days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order amending RFP 4.18 by inserting "120" days for "60" days in the second paragraph and making any necessary conforming changes elsewhere in the RFP, and, after making these changes, proceed with the subject procurement. ENTERED on January 31, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on January 31, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-4: (except that "poisonous" in paragraph 2 is rejected as melodramatic and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence): adopted or adopted in substance. 5: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except for 4.18. 6-7: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Petitioner did not challenge 5.1 E at the hearing or in the proposed recommended order. 8: rejected as irrelevant. 9-13: adopted or adopted in substance. 14: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Petitioner did not prove that the actual information shared by the CMHCs was crucial--only that certain information could theoretically be crucial. 15: adopted or adopted in substance, although other CMHCs operate in Area 6, but do not possess much share of the community mental health services market. 16-17: rejected as irrelevant. 18: adopted or adopted in substance, except for the last sentence, which is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence (except for 4.18). 19-20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21: rejected as repetitious. 22: adopted. 23-25: adopted or adopted in substance, except for last sentence of paragraph 25, which is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 26-27: adopted or adopted in substance. 28: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 29-33: adopted or adopted in substance, except for last sentence of paragraph 33, which is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: adopted or adopted in substance. 35-36: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 37-38: adopted or adopted in substance, although this was hypothetical testimony of one of Respondent's witness, not a formal statement of Respondent's "position." 39 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 39 (second sentence): adopted. 40-44 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 44 (third sentence): rejected as recitation of evidence. 45: adopted. 46-47: adopted or adopted in substance. 48: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 49: rejected as irrelevant and, except for 4.18, unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-5: adopted or adopted in substance. 6: adopted or adopted in substance, except for 4.18. 7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8: adopted or adopted in substance, at least to the extent that Petitioner failed to prove the contrary. 9 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 9 (last sentence): rejected as speculative. 10-16: adopted or adopted in substance, although the extent of Petitioner's ability to respond satisfactorily is questionable, as is the rationale for the use of FTEs for non-administrative positions. Additionally, all proposed findings that RFP provisions do not place non-CMHCs at a disadvantage, when such proposed findings conflict with findings in the recommended order, are rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 Harold D. Lewis, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303 Seann M. Frazier Mark A. Emanuele Panza Maurer P.A. 3081 East Commercial Blvd. Suite 200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308 Paul J. Martin William H. Roberts Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General PL-01, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
Findings Of Fact UniPsych is a Florida corporation that provides managed mental health and substance abuse services to Florida residents. The company was founded by Dr. Leo Bradman, a recognized authority in managed mental health care. UniPsych currently provides mental health and substance abuse services and has been providing mental health services, on a managed care basis to the Lake County School District and its employees for the last five (5) years. In July 1995, the Board issued Request For Proposals No. 883 (RFP). The RFP sought proposals for a managed behavioral health program that includes an employee assistance program and a mental health/substance abuse program for the School District employees, their spouses, and their children. The RFP at a minimum requires that each member would be entitled to three visits a year with a counselor. The first visit would be at no charge to the member and a $10.00 charge to the member for visits two and three. The RFP also states in pertinent part: Rights are reserved by the School Board of Lake County to reject any and all proposals and to waive all technicalities. * * * THE SCHOOL BOARD RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ACCEPT OR REJECT PROPOSALS IN WHOLE OR IN PART; AND TO AWARD A CONTRACT IN THE MANNER IN WHICH THE BOARD DETERMINES TO ITS BEST INTEREST. Award of this proposal is intended to be made by the School Board at its regular meeting on August 8, 1995. Conformity to specifications, price, quality of network, quality of program, response to worksheet and financial stability will be determining factors in the awarding of the proposal. All proposals must include the following: Completed Managed Behavioral Health Program Worksheet signed by an authorized representative. Completed Statement on Public Entity Crimes. A copy of your company's Florida Private Review Act Certification. Sample EAP and Managed MH/SA communi- cations to employees. A sample contract stating the provisions that would apply if your company is selected. Any additional information which your company deems pertinent to the proposal. The RFP does not define the term financial stability. The RFP does state a preferred method of calculating price. The preferred method of calculating price is the per employee contracts per month model. Total employee contracts is 2855 employees. Six (6) vendors submitted proposals prior to the submission deadline for RFP 883, including the prior contract holder UniPsych. The Board's plan for evaluating the six proposals was to submit them to the Board's insurance committee and the Board's expert consultant, John D. Robinson. The Board elected to have Mr. Robinson screen the submitted proposals for responsiveness to the RFP. Of the six (6) proposals submitted to the School Board, only the proposals of UniPsych, FPM, and Mathar Behavioral Health Systems, Inc. were deemed to satisfy the criteria of the RFP. These three proposals were sent to the Board's insurance committee so that the committee members could review and interview the three remaining proposers. The committee members as well as the Board had each proposers' proposal as well as a spreadsheet prepared by Mr. Robinson during his screening process. However, the evidence was clear that the committee relied on the price representations and guarantees contained in the spreadsheet. The Committee voted 9-0-1 to recommend the award to FPM. The Petitioner received no votes. The third finalist received one vote. Around August 10, 1995, UniPsych received written notice that the School District's ten-member district-wide health insurance committee decided to recommend that the School Board award its contract to FPM. As indicated earlier in screening the proposals, Mr. Robinson prepared a spreadsheet containing comparative data. The spreadsheet was not meant to be a complete listing of all the items in a company's proposal. He obtained the information contained in the spreadsheet mostly from the proposers' proposals. However, in at least two instances relevant to this case. Mr. Robinson contacted certain proposers over its proposal. Mr. Robinson felt he could seek corrections or clarifications from FPM, and other proposers because "[t]his is a proposal, not a bid. Proposals have the ability to be questioned and clarified " One such call was made to FPM. The call to FPM was made regarding at least two portions of FPM's proposal. FPM stated in Part 3 of its proposal that 14 average employee assistance program (EAP) visits per 1000 members were handled by FPM; and stated in Part 7 of its proposal that it would offer the benefit design outlined in the Board's specifications at $5.00 per employee contract per month. The $5.00 rate would be guaranteed for "two years without significant Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases." FPM was permitted to change the information contained in Part 3 of its proposal to 80-85 average employee assistance program visits per 1000 members because the original number was an error. The evidence did not demonstrate that this change was significant or material. More importantly however, FPM was allowed to change it price guarantee to three years without the CPI provision. These changes contradicted the plain language of FPM's proposal. Mr. Robinson inserted the newly-provided information in his spreadsheet and reported these changes to FPM's proposal to the committee. The change made to FPM's price guarantee was not a mere clarification but a significant change in a material bid term. The evidence was clear that the information in the spreadsheet was utilized and relied on by the Board and its insurance committee. The spreadsheet also contained information on each proposer's price. However, the spreadsheet was unduly detrimental to UniPsych because it overstated UniPsych's price. Health benefit contracts are typically priced under one of two methods: per employee per month (PEPM) or per member per month (PMPM or additive method). Members include the employee as well as any non-employee persons such as children of the employee covered under a health plan. The RFP stated a preference for pricing on a PEPM basis. UniPsych proposed to charge $4.01 on a PEPM basis. In determining UniPsych's PEPM average, the individual employee price was not added onto the price charged per employee and child(ren), per employee and spouse, or per employee and family. However, the spreadsheet erroneously stated all prices in the spreadsheet on a PMPM basis and reflected that UniPsych proposed to charge $4.80 PMPM instead of $4.01 PEPM. Moreover, the price was incorrectly based on an interpretation of documents relating to UniPsych's pricing scheme under its prior contract with the School Board. The erroneous interpretation served to inflate the spreadsheets price calculation for UniPsych. FPM proposed to charge $5.00 PEPM. Mr. Robinson recognized that if UniPsych's price was $4.01 PEPM, it would be substantially different from FPM's price, and could be sufficient to justify an award of the contract to UniPsych over FPM. Given the price guarantee change to FPM's proposal and this error in calculating UniPsych's price, these two factors warrant the rejection of all the bids in this case. As indicated earlier, the financial stability of a proposer was one of the criteria for review of this RFP. Neither the committee nor the RFP members required that any proposer submit financial information with its proposal or in its presentation to the committee. The only information supplied was general company information showing business activity, clients served and providers under contract. The committee members generally only asked the proposers if such information was available and if the proposer was financially stable. At the hearing, the evidence showed that FPM is the wholly-owned subsidiary of Ramsay Managed Care, Inc. (Ramsay). Ramsay essentially has two operating divisions: a health maintenance organization (HMO) division and a mental health and substance abuse division. FPM is Ramsay's mental health and substance abuse operating division. Ramsay's 10Q filing for the quarter ending March 31, 1995, reported that Ramsay had $17,508,893 in assets, $13,236,246 in liabilities, shareholder's net worth of $4,272,647, and $87,802 in losses that quarter. Ramsay has current assets of $2,957,912 and current liabilities of $4,362,714. These two figures give Ramsay a current ratio of 1:1.47. Generally a 1:1 or better ratio is deserved for financially stable companies. However, the ratio by itself does not show financial instability. It is simply a red flag worthy of more scrutiny. Ramsay's largest asset is "goodwill" totaling $9,959,745. Ramsay's 10Q explains that it booked most of this goodwill to account for its acquisition of FPM and two other mental health companies at prices exceeding the book values of those companies. Again the amount of goodwill does not demonstrate financial instability of a company. The 10Q also reflects that FPM proposes to obtain working capital via a line of credit that is collateralized by security interests in FPM's accounts receivable and its stock. The significance of these security interests is magnified by Ramsay's debt service obligations, which (as of March 31, 1995) would require it to pay out $2,211,100 by June 30, 1997, and $2,407,600 by June 30, 1998. Again these figures do not demonstrate financial instability of a company. To confirm its financial stability, UniPsych offered the Committee audited financial statements that were being prepared on a statutory accounting basis. The statements were never requested by the Committee and the Committee never considered financial statements for any of the proposals. However in this instance, the committee did consider the financial stability of all the proposers to its satisfaction. The evidence did not show that the committee's consideration was unreasonable or unfair to any proposer. In fact, the proposers were treated equally in the quality and quantity of financial information sought by the committee. The fact that more information or better information could have been sought is irrelevant since the committee and Board under the RFP specifications were free to determine the level of inquiry they deemed appropriate. If the specification as used by the Board was unclear or undefined to UniPsych, it should have challenged the specifications within the 72 hour period for such challenges under 120.53, Florida Statutes. Finally, the evidence was clear that UniPsych's proposal was a superior program to FPM's. In short UniPsych offered more benefits for less money. Indeed UniPsych's experiences during those five (5) years gave it first-hand knowledge of several ways it could improve and enhance the managed care program specified by the Board's RFP. FPM's proposal fails to offer any enhanced benefits. To enhance and improve the RFP's managed care program, UniPsych offered to provide two (2) additional benefits to the Board: (a) an out-of-network benefit; and (b) a chronic condition benefit. The out-of-network benefit gives potential patients complete choice of out-patient providers and increased choice of in-patient (hospital) providers, by allowing those potential patients to select a provider who is outside a designated network of providers. The chronic condition benefit addresses another restriction that is prevalent in most managed mental health care programs. As is the case with the RFP in issue, most managed mental health care programs routinely fail to require the plan provider to contract for coverage of chronic, recurrent or long-term mental health conditions (chronic conditions). This omission forces chronic condition patients to look to publicly funded community agencies for mental health care. Publicly funded facilities in Lake County have not produced patient satisfaction, partly because they are too few in number or they offer too few services. In addition to these two (2) major benefits, UniPsych's proposal also offered several other valuable benefit enhancements that improved upon the RFP's minimum requirements: 10 additional out-patient visits (above the 20 required by the RFP); and 5 free visits (i.e., no co-payment for members) under UniPsych's Employee Assistance Program, instead of the RFP's requirement of three visits, only the first of which is not subject to co-payment. The evidence did not demonstrate any reason with a basis in fact which would have caused the School Board to reject UniPsych's proposal in favor of FPM. The evidence only hinted at a general dissatisfaction with UniPsych. No basis for this dissatisfaction was shown. Since no basis was given for the Board's decision to reject a proposal which offers more benefits for less money the only conclusion is that the Board acted arbitrarily in awarding the contract to FPM. Therefore, all the proposals should be rejected and the process begun anew.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order rejecting all proposals. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of January, 1996, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Officer Hearings 1550 Hearings DIANNE CLEAVINGER, Hearing Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399- (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 29th day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 95-4827BID The facts contained in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22, of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 6, 10, 11, 16, 18, 24, 25 and 26 of the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 12 and 23 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8(a) and (b) and 15 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact* are adopted in substance is so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 9 and 10 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. Paragraph 8(c) of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact contained only legal argument. *Paragraphs 7 through 15 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact were unnumbered. Therefore, the Hearing Officer supplied sequential numbers for these paragraphs for reference purposes. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy G. Schoenwalder, Esquire Blank, Rigsby and Meenan, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard Langley, Esquire Post Office Box 120188 Clermont, Florida 34712-0188 Dr. Thomas E. Sanders, Superintendent Lake County School Board 201 West Burleigh Boulevard Tavares, Florida 32778-2496 Frank T. Brogan, Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues are whether the Respondent should be disciplined under sections 464.204(1)(b) and 456.072(1)(z), Florida Statutes2/; and, if so, the appropriate discipline.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner regulates the practice of nursing and nursing assistants in Florida. The Respondent holds license CNA 140254, which allows her to work as a certified nursing assistant (CNA). She became licensed in 2006 and worked as a CNA at Quality Health Care Center (“Quality Health Care”) in Winter Garden from 2007 through 2016. There is no evidence that the Petitioner was aware of any concerns about the Respondent’s ability to practice as a CNA with reasonable skill and safety until May 2016. In May 2016, the Respondent sent an e-mail to the Petitioner’s Medical Quality Assurance Consumer Services Unit that said: Hi this is Francoise Utegg license # 140254 CNA. I m impossible since 2005 after I bought an house with my husband at 2004 Kruger Dr Modesto CA 95355 Since in the next day we finished repair the house I m impossible they executed me and video track me I face cults culture deaths I’m living an abandoned live people talking inside me it s not in my brain you can verify my work and I never give up to work I found out a gang tracking me to force me to give up my life. I was at work yesterday someone talk in me said I will cheats you, They pushed me down verbal harassing terracing terrified terrorize everywhere I m it s feel like I don’t have any right They say that I m assaulted to take care of children. They dissolution my married and pushed me down they wasting me in nightmares Thanks for your concern. It s can be anyone’s else The Respondent’s intent in sending this e-mail was to do a public service by alerting the Petitioner to the possibility that many other people might come under similar attacks, to the detriment of their health and safety. The result was that the Petitioner immediately began an investigation into the Respondent’s ability to practice with reasonable skill and safety due to a physical or mental illness. The investigation included an interview with the Respondent and an inquiry to the Intervention Project for Nurses (IPN), which reported that the Respondent was not a program participant. In July 2016, the Petitioner ordered the Respondent to undergo a mental and physical examination to determine her ability to practice and the need for IPN. An examination by Jamie Smolen, M.D., was scheduled for February 13, 2017. In December 2016, the Respondent was at work in the dining room at Quality Health Care when she began hearing voices telling her that she was “a domestique,” i.e., in her native Haitian patois, no more than a common house maid. This insulted and angered the Respondent, who was very proud of having passed her licensure examination and worked as a licensed nursing assistant for almost ten years. The Respondent controlled her anger while working with her patients but then began to angrily and loudly dispute what the voices were saying and angrily threw dirty dishes and utensils into a wash tub, which made loud crashing sounds. The family of one of the patients heard and saw this incident and reported it to the administration of Quality Health Care. Quality Health Care investigated the family’s report and required the Respondent to be evaluated and cleared before returning to work. Dr. Smolen examined the Respondent as scheduled on February 13, 2017. He diagnosed schizophrenia, paranoid type, continuous. Schizophrenia is a mental disorder characterized by abnormal social behavior and a failure to understand what is real. Symptoms include: delusions; hallucinations; and disorganized speech. Dr. Smolen recommended that the Respondent did not have reasonable skill and safety to return to practice as a CNA; that she should receive psychiatric medication management; that she should agree to a mental health monitoring contract with IPN; that she should not be allowed to return to work until she demonstrated full compliance with the IPN contract, including medication management and psychiatric follow-up to confirm remission in response to treatment; and that she should be evaluated at that time for recovery status and return to work. Dr. Smolen’s opinion is based in part on information provided to him by the Respondent. She is a Haitian woman, aged approximately 50, who married a Canadian and accompanied him when he returned to Canada in 1996. They moved to Modesto, California, and in 2005 they undertook to renovate a home they purchased there. They worked long and hard. As the repairs were being finished, the Respondent perceived strange things happening to her. She believed something was in the house trying to harm her. She also believed she was under video surveillance and that a remote-controlled device was implanted in her abdomen. She also began to suffer from auditory hallucinations, hearing disembodied voices speaking French creole. She believed the voices may have been spirits, a “gang cult” in the air, or a “satanic legion.” She thought she had been “voodoo-ized.” She suffered physical symptoms, such as weight loss, recurrent headaches, and abdominal pain that she attributed to the implanted device. She also imagined being hit in the face by an invisible hand and an invisible tightening around her hands. The Respondent’s husband did not believe she was cursed, but instead believed she suffered from schizophrenia, and he took her to a doctor for treatment. The Respondent called the doctor a “witch psychologist” who prescribed Risperdal, an anti- psychotic medication. The Respondent thought the dosage she received caused her to “float as though she did not exist” and feel “limp like a snake.” In the Respondent’s mind, this confirmed that she was cursed, not schizophrenic. The Respondent had blood drawn for her examination by the “witch psychologist.” She later saw marks, possibly hematomas, where the blood was drawn. The Respondent interpreted the marks as signs that something evil was happening to her. After what happened to her in Modesto, the Respondent and her husband divorced, and she moved to Orlando, Florida. In Orlando, the Respondent’s abdominal pain persisted. When the Respondent sought medical advice, she was referred to mental health specialists, and the Respondent refused treatment. Not only did she not believe she had a mental illness, she seemed to believe the mental health professionals were part of the “attack” against her by the evil spirits, or whoever or whatever was tormenting her. In 2006, despite her troubles, the Respondent somehow managed to become licensed as a nursing assistant, and managed to get a job as a CNA at Quality Health Care Center. It appears that she held the job for approximately ten years. The Respondent proudly reports that she frequently was asked to work overtime. No testimony or evidence was presented from anyone other than the Respondent concerning her job performance during those ten years. It is possible that her work was uninterrupted by her torments, but not likely, given the Respondent’s self- reporting of some of the incidents during those ten years. The Respondent testified that she has called the police more than ten times over the years to report the harassing voices she hears because she thinks they could harm others, too. The usual police response has been to handcuff the Respondent and transport her to a mental health facility for observation and treatment. Typically, the Respondent refuses treatment or discontinues it after a period of compliance, and the pattern repeats itself. On February 22, 2017, the Respondent was admitted to Aspire Healthcare on an inpatient status. She stayed for five days and was discharged on Zyprexa, an anti-psychotic medication, with clearance to return to work. She returned to work at Quality Health Care shortly after that and was compliant with her medication for a time. There was no evidence of any incidents at work after that. In April 2017, the Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against the Respondent alleging her inability to practice as a nursing assistant with reasonable skill and safety by reason of her mental illness and her intentional refusal to comply with recommended treatment. At some point, Quality Health Care was informed about the Administrative Complaint and placed the Respondent on leave from her employment. When the Respondent received the Administrative Complaint in June 2017, she disputed the charges and asked for a hearing. All of this greatly upset the Respondent, who stopped taking her Zyprexa, as futile, and decompensated. A neighbor witnessed bizarre behavior in her home garden and reported her to the police, who handcuffed her and transported her to a mental health facility for observation and treatment. On November 3, 2017, Dr. Smolen re-evaluated the Respondent. His opinion as to the Respondent’s mental illness and ability to practice with reasonable skill and safety did not change. The Respondent denies that she has a mental illness. As a result, she does not recognize the need for treatment or medication or monitoring. Nonetheless, she has shown some willingness to do what is necessary to remove the restrictions on her license so she can return to work, and she claims to have tried to contact IPN, but without success. However, she has not followed through for long before she gets frustrated with how long it takes to get cleared to return to work. When that happens, she stops treatment and medication.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order: finding the Respondent to be in violation of section 456.071(1)(z); suspending her license until she enters into a mental health contract with IPN, and appears before the Board to demonstrate, through an evaluation by IPN, that she can practice as a nursing assistant with reasonable skill and safety to patients; imposing such additional conditions and/or probation at the time of reinstatement; and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 6th day of February, 2018.
