The Issue Does Petitioner, AHF MCO of Florida, Inc., d/b/a PHC Florida HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan (Positive), have standing to contest the intended award to Simply for Regions 10 and 11 or to seek rejection of all proposals? (Case No. 18-3507 and 18-3508) Should the intended decision of Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), to contract with Simply Healthcare Plans, Inc. (Simply), for Medicaid managed care plans for HIV/AIDS patients in Regions 10 (Broward County) and Region 11 (Miami-Dade and Collier Counties) be invalidated and all proposals rejected? (Case Nos. 18-3507 and 18-3508) Must the Agency negotiate with Petitioner, South Florida Community Care Network, LLC, d/b/a Community Care Plan (Community), about a plan to provide HIV/AIDS Medicaid managed care services in Region 10 because it was the only responsive proposer of services that was a Provider Service Network (PSN)? (Case No. 18-3512) Must the Agency negotiate with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services in Region 10 for people with Serious Mental Illnesses because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3511) Must the Agency contract with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services for Children with Special Needs in Region 10 because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3513) Must the Agency negotiate with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services for Child Welfare patients in Region 10 because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3514)
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES Agency: Section 20.42, Florida Statutes, establishes the Agency as Florida’s chief health policy and planning agency. The Agency is the single state agency authorized to select eligible plans to participate in the Medicaid program. Positive: Positive is a Florida not-for-profit corporation operating a Medicaid health plan dedicated to serving people with HIV/AIDS. Positive serves about 2,000 patients in Florida. Positive’s health plan is accredited by the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Healthcare. Its disease management program is accredited by the National Committee for Quality Assurance. Currently, the Agency contracts with Positive for a SMMC HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan serving Regions 10 and 11. Simply: Simply is a Florida for-profit corporation operating a Medicaid health plan dedicated to serving people with HIV/AIDS. Currently, the Agency contracts with Simply to provide a SMMC HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan for Regions 1 through 3 and 5 through 11. Simply has maintained the largest patient enrollment of all HIV/AIDs plans in Florida since Florida started its statewide Medicaid managed care program. Community Care: Community is a Florida limited liability company. It is a PSN as defined in sections 409.912(1)(b) and 409.962(14), Florida Statutes. Staywell: Staywell is the fictitious name for WellCare of Florida, Inc., serving Florida’s Medicaid population. Sunshine: Sunshine State Health Plan (Sunshine) is a Florida corporation. It offers managed care plans to Florida Medicaid recipients. THE INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE TIMELINE On July 14, 2017, the Agency released 11 ITNs plans for Florida’s Medicaid managed care program in 11 statutorily defined regions. Region 10, Broward County, and Region 11, Miami-Dade and Collier Counties, are the regions relevant to this proceeding. Part IV of chapter 409, creates a statewide, integrated managed care program for Medicaid services. This program called Statewide Medicaid Managed Care includes two programs, Managed Medical Assistance and Long-term Care. Section 409.966(2), directs the Agency to conduct separate and simultaneous procurements to select eligible plans for each region using the ITN procurement process created by section 287.057(1)(c). The ITNs released July 14, 2017, fulfilled that command. The Agency issued 11 identical ITNs of 624 pages, one for each region, in omnibus form. They provided elements for four types of plans. Some elements were common to all types. Others were restricted to a specific plan type defined by intended patient population. The plan types are comprehensive plans, long-term care plus plans, managed medical assistance plans, and specialty plans. Section 409.962(16) defines “Specialty Plan” as a “managed care plan that serves Medicaid recipients who meet specified criteria based on age, medical condition, or diagnosis.” Responding vendors identified the plan type or types that they were proposing. The Agency issued Addendum No. 1 to the ITNs on September 14, 2017. On October 2, 2017, the Agency issued Addendum No. 2 to the ITNs. Addendum 2 included 628 questions about the ITNs and the Agency’s responses to the questions. Florida law permits potential responders to an ITN to challenge the specifications of an ITN, including the addendums. § 120.57(3)(b), Fla. Stat. Nobody challenged the specifications of the ITNs. As contemplated by section 287.057(c)(2), the Agency conducted “a conference or written question and answer period for purposes of assuring the vendors’ full understanding of the solicitation requirements.” Positive, Community, and Simply, along with United Healthcare of Florida, Inc., HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan (United), submitted responses to the ITN in Region 10 proposing HIV/AIDS Specialty Plans. Community was the only PSN to propose an HIV/AIDS plan for Region 10. Positive, Simply, and United submitted replies to the ITN for Region 11, proposing HIV/AIDS Specialty Plans. Community, United, Staywell, and one other provider submitted proposals to provide SMI Specialty Plan services in Region 10. Community was the only responding PSN. Community, Sunshine, and Staywell submitted proposals to provide Child Welfare Specialty Plans (CW) in Region 10. Community was the only PSN. Community, Staywell, and two others submitted proposals to offer Specialty Plans for Children with Special Needs (CSN) in Region 10. Community was one of two responding PSNs. Proposal scoring began November 6, 2017, and ended January 16, 2018. The Agency announced its intended awards on April 24, 2018. On April 24, 2018, the Agency issued its notices of intent to award specialty contracts in Regions 10 and 11. The following charts summarize the Agency’s ranking of the proposals and its intended awards. The two highest ranked plans, which the Agency selected for negotiations, are identified in bold. Region 10 – Children with Special Needs Respondent Intended Award Ranking Staywell No 1 Community No 2 Miami Children’s Health Plan, LLC No 3 Our Children PSN of Florida, LLC No 4 Region 10 – Child Welfare Respondent Intended Award Ranking Staywell No 1 Sunshine Yes 2 Molina Healthcare of Florida, Inc. No 3 Community No 4 Region 10 – HIV/AIDS Respondent Intended Award Ranking Simply Yes 1 United No 2 Community No 3 Positive No 4 Region 10 – Serious Mental Illness Respondent Intended Award Ranking Staywell Yes 1 United No 2 Florida MHS, Inc. No 3 Community No 4 Region 11 – HIV/AIDS Respondent Intended Award Ranking Simply Yes 1 United No 2 Positive No 3 All of the Specialty Plan awards noticed by the Agency went to bidders who also proposed, and received, comprehensive plan awards. The protests, referrals, and proceedings before the Division summarized in the Preliminary Statement followed the Agency’s announcement of its intended awards. TERMS The voluminous ITN consisted of a two-page transmittal letter and three Attachments (A, B, and C), with a total of 34 exhibits to them. They are: Attachment A, Exhibits A-1 through A-8, Attachment B, Exhibits B-1 through B-3, and Attachment C, Exhibits C-1 through C-8. The ITN establishes a two-step process for selecting: an evaluation phase and a negotiation phase. In the evaluation phase, each respondent was required to submit a proposal responding to criteria of the ITN. Proposals were to be evaluated, scored, and ranked. The goal of the evaluation phase was to determine which respondents would move to negotiations, not which would be awarded a contract. The top two ranking Specialty Plans per specialty population would be invited to negotiations. In the negotiation phase, the Agency would negotiate with each invited respondent. After that, the Agency would announce its intended award of a contract to the plan or plans that the Agency determined would provide the best value. Together, the attachments and exhibits combined instructions, criteria, forms, certifications, and data into a “one size fits all” document that described the information required for four categories of managed care plans to serve Medicaid patients. The ITN also provided data to consider in preparing responses. The transmittal letter emphasized, “Your response must comply fully with the instructions that stipulate what is to be included in the response.” The ITNs identified Jennifer Barrett as the procurement officer and sole point of contact with the Agency for vendors. The transmittal letter is reproduced here. This solicitation is being issued by the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, hereinafter referred to as “AHCA” or “Agency”, to select a vendor to provide Statewide Medicaid Managed Care Program services. The solicitation package consists of this transmittal letter and the following attachments and exhibits: Attachment A Instructions and Special ConditionsExhibit A-1 Questions TemplateExhibit A-2-a Qualification of Plan Eligibility Exhibit A-2-b Provider Service Network Certification of Ownership and Controlling InterestExhibit A-2-c Additional Required Certifications and StatementsExhibit A-3-a Milliman Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan Exhibit A-3-b Milliman Employee Organizational Conflict of Interest AffidavitExhibit A-4 Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria InstructionsExhibit A-4-a General Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria Exhibit A-4-a-1 SRC# 6 - General Performance Measurement ToolExhibit A-4-a-2 SRC# 9 - Expanded Benefits Tool (Regional) Exhibit A-4-a-3 SRC# 10 - Additional Expanded Benefits Template (Regional)Exhibit A-4-a-4 SRC# 14 - Standard CAHPS Measurement Tool Exhibit A-4-b MMA Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria Exhibit A-4-b-1 MMA SRC# 6 - Provider Network Agreements/Contracts (Regional)Exhibit A-4-b-2 MMA SRC# 14 - MMA Performance Measurement Tool Exhibit A-4-b-3 MMA SRC# 21 - Provider Network Agreements/Contracts Statewide Essential Providers Exhibit A-4-c LTC Submission Requirements and Evaluation CriteriaExhibit A-4-c-1 LTC SRC# 4 - Provider Network Agreements/Contracts (Regional) Exhibit A-4-d Specialty Submission Requirements and Evaluation CriteriaExhibit A-5 Summary of Respondent CommitmentsExhibit A-6 Summary of Managed Care Savings Exhibit A-7 Certification of Drug-Free Workplace ProgramExhibit A-8 Standard Contract Attachment B Scope of Service - Core Provisions Exhibit B-1 Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) ProgramExhibit B-2 Long-Term Care (LTC) ProgramExhibit B-3 Specialty Plan Attachment C Cost Proposal Instructions and Rate Methodology NarrativeExhibit C-1 Capitated Plan Cost Proposal TemplateExhibit C-2 FFS PSN Cost Proposal Template Exhibit C-3 Preliminary Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Program Rate Cell Factors Exhibit C-4 Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Program Expanded Benefit Adjustment Factors Exhibit C-5 Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Program IBNR Adjustment Factors Exhibit C-6 Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Program Historical Capitated Plan Provider Contracting Levels During SFY 15/16 Time Period Exhibit C-7 Statewide Medicaid Managed Care Data BookExhibit C-8 Statewide Medicaid Managed Care Data Book Questions and Answers Your response must comply fully with the instructions that stipulate what is to be included in the response. Respondents submitting a response to this solicitation shall identify the solicitation number, date and time of opening on the envelope transmitting their response. This information is used only to put the Agency mailroom on notice that the package received is a response to an Agency solicitation and therefore should not be opened, but delivered directly to the Procurement Officer. The ITN describes the plans as follows: Comprehensive Long-term Care Plan (herein referred to as a “Comprehensive Plan”) – A Managed Care Plan that is eligible to provide Managed Medical Assistance services and Long-term Care services to eligible recipients. Long-term Care Plus Plan – A Managed Care Plan that is eligible to provide Managed Medical Assistance services and Long-term Care services to eligible recipients enrolled in the Long-term Care program. This plan type is not eligible to provide services to recipients who are only eligible for MMA services. Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Plan – A Managed Care Plan that is eligible to provide Managed Medical Assistance services to eligible recipients. This plan type is not eligible to provide services to recipients who are eligible for Long-term Care services. Specialty Plan – A Managed Care Plan that is eligible to provide Managed Medical Assistance services to eligible recipients who are defined as a specialty population in the resulting Contract. Specialty Plans are at issue. The ITN did not define, describe, or specify specialty populations to be served. It left that to the responding vendors. Beyond that, the ITN left the ultimate definition of the specialty population for negotiation, saying in Section II(B)(1)(a) of Attachment B, Exhibit B-3, “[t]he Agency shall identify the specialty population eligible for enrollment in the Specialty Plan based on eligibility criteria based upon negotiations.” Some respondents directly identified the specialty population. Simply’s transmittal letter stated that it proposed “a Specialty plan for individuals with HIV/AIDS.” Positive’s response to Exhibit A-4-d Specialty SRC 4, eligibility and enrollment, stated, “the specialty population for the PHC [Positive] plan will be Medicaid eligible, male and female individuals from all age groups who are HIV positive with or without symptoms and those individuals who have progressed in their HIV disease to meet the CDC definition of AIDS.” Some others left definition of the specialty population to be inferred from the ITN response. The result is that the ITN left definition of the specialty populations initially to the respondents and ultimately to negotiations between the Agency and successful respondents. Petitioners and Intervenors describe the populations that they propose serving as HIV/AIDS patients, patients with SMI, CSN, and child welfare populations. ITN respondents could have proposed serving only cancer patients, serving only obstetric patients, or serving only patients with hemophilia. The part of the ITN requiring a respondent to identify the plan type for which it was responding offered only four alternative blocks to check. They were: “Comprehensive Plan,” Long-Term Care Plus Plan,” “Managed Medical Assistance Plan,” or “Specialty Plan.” Attachment A to the ITN, labeled “Instructions and Special Conditions,” provides an overview of the solicitation process; instructions for response preparation and content; information regarding response submission requirements; information regarding response evaluation, negotiations, and contract awards; and information regarding contract implementation. Exhibits A-1 to A-3 and A-5 to A-7 of the ITN contain various certifications and attestations that respondents had to prepare and verify. Exhibit A-4 contains submission requirement components (SRCs) to which respondents had to prepare written responses. Exhibit A-8 contains the state’s standard SMMC contract. ITN Exhibit A-4-a contains 36 general submission requirements and evaluation criteria (General SRCs). ITN Exhibit A-4-b contains 21 MMA submission requirements and evaluation criteria (MMA SRCs). ITN Exhibit A-4-c contains 13 LTC submission requirements and evaluation criteria (LTC SRCs). ITN Exhibit A-4-d contains five specialty submission requirements and evaluation criteria (Specialty SRCs). The responses that the 36 SRCs require vary greatly. Some are as simple as providing documents or listing items. Others require completing tables or spreadsheets with data. Consequently, responses to some SRCS apparently could be reviewed in very little time, even a minute or less. Others requiring narrative responses might take longer. Examples follow. General SRC 1 required a list of the respondent’s contracts for managed care services and 12 information items about them including things such as whether they were capitated, a narrative describing the scope of work; the number of enrollees; and accomplishments and achievement. General SRC 2 asked for documentation of experience operating a Medicaid health plan in Florida. General SRC 3 asked for information confirming the location of facilities and employees in Florida. General SRC 12 requested a flowchart and written description of how the respondent would execute its grievance and appeal system. It listed six evaluation criteria. MMA SRC 2 asks for a description of the respondent’s organizational commitment to quality improvement “as it relates to pregnancy and birth outcomes.” It lists seven evaluation criteria. MMA SRC 10 asks for a description of the respondent’s plan for transition of care between service settings. It lists six evaluation criteria including the respondent’s process for collaboration with providers. Specialty SRC 1 asks for detailed information about respondent’s managed care experience with the specialty population. Specialty SRC 5 asks for detailed information about the respondent’s provider network standards and provides five evaluation criteria for evaluating the answers. Exhibit A-8 of the ITN contains the standard SMMC contract. Attachment B and Exhibits B-1 to B-3 of the ITN contain information about the scope of service and core provisions for plans under the SMMC program. Attachment C and Exhibits C-1 to C-8 of the ITN contain information related to the cost proposals and rate methodologies for plans under the SMMC program. The ITN permitted potential respondents to submit written questions about the solicitation to the Agency by August 14, 2017. Some did. On September 14, 2017, the Agency issued Addendum No. 1 to the ITN. Among other things, Addendum No. 1 changed the anticipated date for the Agency’s responses to respondents’ written questions from September 15 to October 2, 2017. The Agency issued Addendum No. 2 to the ITN on October 2, 2017. Addendum No. 2 included a chart with 628 written questions from potential respondents and the Agency’s answers. Attachment A at A 10-(d) makes it clear that the answers are part of the addendum. Both Addendums to the ITN cautioned that any protest of the terms, conditions, or specifications of the Addendums to the ITN had to be filed with the Agency within 72 hours of their posting. No respondent protested. Instructions for the A-4 Exhibits included these requirements: Each SRC contains form fields. Population of the form fields with text will allow the form field to expand and cross pages. There is no character limit. All SRCs, marked as “(Statewide)” must be identical for each region in which the respondent submits a reply. For timeliness of response evaluation, the Agency will evaluate each “(Statewide)” SRC once and transfer the score to each applicable region’s evaluation score sheet(s). The SRCs marked as “(Regional)” will be specific and only apply to the region identified in the solicitation and the evaluation score will not be transferred to any other region. The instructions continue: Agency evaluators will be instructed to evaluate the responses based on the narrative contained in the SRC form fields and the associated attachment(s), if applicable. Each response will be independently evaluated and awarded points based on the criteria and points scale using the Standard Evaluation Criteria Scale below unless otherwise identified in each SRC contained within Exhibit A-4. This is the scale: STANDARD EVALUATION CRITERIA SCALE Point Score Evaluation 0 The component was not addressed. 1 The component contained significant deficiencies. 2 The component is below average. 3 The component is average. 4 The component is above average. 5 The component is excellent. The ITN further explained that different SRCs would be worth different “weights,” based on the subject matter of the SRC and on whether they were General, MMA, LTC, or Specialty SRCs. It assigned weights by establishing different “weight factors” applied as multipliers to the score a respondent received on a criteria. For example, “Respondent Background/Experience” could generate a raw score of 90. Application of a weight factor of three made 270 the maximum possible score for this criteria. “Oversight and Accountability” could generate a raw score of 275. A weight factor of one, however, made the maximum score available 275. General SRC 6 solicits HEDIS data. HEDIS is a tool that consists of 92 measures across six domains of care that make it possible to compare the performance of health plans on an “apples-to-apples” basis. SRC 6 states: The respondent shall describe its experience in achieving quality standards with populations similar to the target population described in this solicitation. The respondent shall include, in table format, the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible), the respondent’s results for the HEDIS measures specified below for each of the last two (2) years (CY 2015/ HEDIS 2016 and CY 2016/ HEDIS 2017) for the respondent’s three (3) largest Medicaid Contracts (measured by number of enrollees). If the respondent does not have HEDIS results for at least three (3) Medicaid Contracts, the respondent shall provide commercial HEDIS measures for the respondent’s largest Contracts. If the Respondent has Florida Medicaid HEDIS results, it shall include the Florida Medicaid experience as one (1) of three (3) states for the last two (2) years. The respondent shall provide the data requested in Exhibit A-4-a-1, General Performance Measurement Tool[.] x x x Score: This section is worth a maximum of 160 raw points x x x For each of the measure rates, a total of 10 points is available per state reported (for a total of 360 points available). The respondent will be awarded 2 points if their reported plan rate exceeded the national Medicaid mean and 2 points if their reported plan rate exceeded the applicable regional Medicaid mean, for each available year, for each available state. The respondent will be awarded an additional 2 points for each measure rate where the second year’s rate is an improvement over the first year’s rate, for each available state. An aggregate score will be calculated and respondents will receive a final score of 0 through 150 corresponding to the number and percentage of points received out of the total available points. For example, if a respondent receives 100% of the available 360 points, the final score will be 150 points (100%). If a respondent receives 324 (90%) of the available 360 points, the final score will be 135 points (90%). If a respondent receives 36 (10%) of the available 360 points, the final score will be 15 points (10%). The SRC is plainly referring to the broad Medicaid- eligible population when it says “the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible).” “Dual eligible” populations are persons eligible for Medicaid and Medicare. There, as throughout the ITN, the ITN delineates between a target population of all Medicaid-eligible patients and a specialty population as described in a respondent’s ITN proposal. The clear instructions for SRC 6 require, “Use the drop-down box to select the state for which you are reporting and enter the performance measure rates (to the hundredths place, or XX.XX) for that state's Medicaid population for the appropriate calendar year.” Community did not comply. General SRC 14 solicits similar data, in similar form using a similar tool, about a respondent’s Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS). CAHPS data is basically a satisfaction survey. It asks respondents to provide “in table format the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible) and the respondent’s results for the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) items/composites specified below for the 2017 survey for its adult and child populations for the respondent’s three (3) largest Medicaid Contracts (as measured by number of enrollees).” Just like General SRC 6 did with HEDIS data, General SRC 14 ITN instructed bidders to put their CAHPS data for the “target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible)” “for the respondent’s three (3) largest Medicaid Contracts (measured by number of enrollees)” for multiple states into an excel spreadsheet “to the hundredths place[.]” Also, like General SRC 6, General SRC 14 includes an objective formula described in the ITN for scoring bidders’ CAHPS data. RANKING PROVISIONS Attachment A at (D)(4)(c)(2) stated: Each response will be individually scored by at least three (3) evaluators, who collectively have experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which contractual services are sought by this solicitation. The Agency reserves the right to have specific sections of the response evaluated by less than three (3) individuals. The ITN’s example of how total point scores would be calculated, discussed below, also indicated that some sections may be scored by less than three evaluators. The explanatory chart had a column for “[o]ther Sections evaluated by less than three (3) evaluators. ” The Agency’s policy, however, has been to assign at least three evaluators to score program specific SRCs. Attachment A at (D)(4)(e)(2) advised respondents how the agency will rank the competing responses. It was clear and specific, even providing an example of the process showing how the scores “will” be calculated. Step one of the explanatory chart stated that the Agency would calculate a total point score for each response. Step two stated that “[t]he total point scores will be used to rank the responses by an evaluator. . . .” Next, the rankings by the evaluator are averaged to determine the average rank for each respondent. This average ranking is critical because ranking is how the ITN said the Agency would select respondents for negotiation and how the Agency did select respondents for negotiation. The step two and step three charts, reproduced below, demonstrate that the ITN contemplated an evaluation process in which each response was to be evaluated in its entirety by three different evaluators, or maybe less than three, but indisputably in its entirety by those who evaluated it. This did not happen. Step 2 The total point scores will be used to rank the responses by evaluator (Response with the highest number of points = 1, second highest = 2, etc.). POINTS SUMMARY Evaluator A Evaluator B Evaluator C Evaluator D Respondent 446 Respondent 396 Respondent 311 Respondent 413 Respondent 425 Respondent 390 Respondent 443 Respondent 449 Respondent 397 Respondent 419 Respondent 389 Respondent 435 Respondent 410 Respondent 388 Respondent 459 Respondent 325 RANKING SUMMARY Evaluator A Evaluator B Evaluator C Evaluator D Respondent 1 1 Respondent 1 2 Respondent 1 4 Respondent 3 Respondent 2 2 Respondent 2 3 Respondent 2 2 Respondent 1 Respondent 3 4 Respondent 3 1 Respondent 3 3 Respondent 2 Respondent 4 3 Respondent 4 4 Respondent 4 1 Respondent 4 c) Step 3 An average rank will be calculated for each response for all the evaluators. Respondent 1 1+2+4+3=10÷4=2.5 Respondent 2 2+3+2+1=8÷4=2.0 Respondent 3 4+1+3+2=10÷4=2.5 Respondent 4 3+4+1+4=12÷4=3.0 PROVIDER SERVICE NETWORK PROVISIONS Florida law permits a PSN to limit services provided to a target population “based on age, chronic disease state, or medical condition of the enrollee.” This allows a PSN to offer a specialty plan. For each region, the eligible plan requirements of section 409.974(1) state, “At least one plan must be a provider service network if any provider service networks submit a responsive bid.” Section 409.974(3) says: “Participation by specialty plans shall be subject to the procurement requirements of this section. The aggregate enrollment of all specialty plans in a region may not exceed 10 percent of the total enrollees of that region.” The ITN addressed those requirements. The Negotiation Process section of Attachment A, Instructions and Special Conditions, says: The Agency intends to invite the following number of respondents to negotiation: Comprehensive Plans The top four (4) ranking Comprehensive Plans. Long-term Care Plus Plans The top two (2) ranking Long-term Care Plus Plans Managed Medical Assistance Plans The top two (2) ranking Managed Medical Assistance Plans Specialty Managed Medical Assistance Plans The top two (2) ranking Specialty Managed Medical Assistance Plans per specialty population. If there are no provider service networks included in the top ranked respondents listed above, the Agency will invite the highest ranked PSN(s) to negotiations in order to fulfill the requirements of Section 409.974(1), Florida Statutes and Section 409.981(1), Florida Statutes. Emphasis supplied. The ITN specifications in Section D.7, titled Number of Awards, state as follows about Specialty Plan awards: 7. Number of Awards In accordance with Sections 409.966, 409.974, and 409.981, Florida Statutes, the Agency intends to select a limited number of eligible Managed Care Plans to provide services under the SMMC program in Region 10. The Agency anticipates issuing the number of Contract awards for Region 10 as described in Table 5, SMMC Region, below, excluding awards to Specialty MMA Plans. Table 5 SMMC Region Region Total Anticipated Contract Awards Region 10 4 If a respondent is awarded a Contract for multiple regions, the Agency will issue one (1) Contract to include all awarded regions. The Agency will award at least one (1) Contract to a PSN provided a PSN submits a responsive reply and negotiates a rate acceptable to the Agency. The Agency, at its sole discretion, shall make this determination. A respondent that is awarded a Contract as a Comprehensive Plan is determined to satisfy the requirements in Section 409.974, Florida Statutes and Section 409.981, Florida Statutes and shall be considered an awardee of an MMA Contract and a LTC Contract. The Agency will issue one (1) Contract to reflect all awarded populations in all awarded regions. In addition to the number of Contracts awarded in this region, additional Contracts may be awarded to Specialty Plans that negotiate terms and conditions determined to be the best value to the State and negotiate a rate acceptable to the Agency. The Agency, at its sole discretion, shall make this determination. The Agency reserves the right to make adjustments to the enrollee eligibility and identification criteria proposed by a Specialty Plan prior to Contract award in order to ensure that the aggregate enrollment of all awarded Specialty Plans in a region will not exceed ten percent (10%) of the total enrollees in that region, in compliance with Section 409.974(3), Florida Statutes. If a respondent is awarded a Contract as a Specialty Plan and another plan type, the Agency will issue one (1) Contract to include all awarded populations in all awarded regions. A prospective vendor asked about the interplay of Specialty Plan options and the PSN requirements. The question and the answer provided in Addendum 2 follow: Q. Please clarify the number of PSN awards per region and how PSN awards will be determined based on the PSN's plan type (e.g., Comprehensive, LTC Plus, MMA, Specialty). As you know, Sections 409.974 and 409.981, Florida Statutes require one MMA PSN and one LTC PSN award per region (assuming a PSN is responsive) and the Agency has stated that an award to a Comprehensive Plan PSN will meet the requirements of both statutes. However, can the Agency further clarify whether other types of PSNs would meet the statutory requirements? Specifically, would a PSN LTC Plus award meet the requirements of Section 409.981, Florida Statutes? Similarly, would an award to a Specialty Plan PSN meet the requirements of Section 409.974, Florida Statutes? A. See Attachment A Instructions and Special Conditions, Section D Response Evaluations, and Contract Award, Sub-Section 7 Number of Awards. Yes, a PSN LTC Plus award would meet the requirements of Section 409.981(2). A Specialty Plan PSN would not meet the requirements of Section 409.974(1). The only reasonable interpretation of this answer is that Specialty Plan PSNs do not satisfy the requirement to contract with a responsive PSN imposed by section 409.974. None of the prospective vendors, including Community, challenged this clarification. EVALUATION PROCESS THE EVALUATORS The Agency selected 11 people to evaluate the proposals. The Agency assigned each person a number used to identify who was assigned to which task and to track performance of evaluation tasks. The procurement officer sent the evaluators a brief memo of instructions. It provided dates; described logistics of evaluation; emphasized the importance of independent evaluation; and prohibited communicating about the ITN and the proposals with anyone other than the procurement office. The Agency also conducted an instructional session for evaluators. Evaluator 1, Marie Donnelly: During the procurement, Ms. Donnelly was the Agency’s Chief of the Bureau of Medicaid Quality. She held this position for five years before resigning. This bureau bore responsibility for ensuring that the current SMMC plans met their contract requirements for quality and quality improvement measures. Her role specifically included oversight of Specialty Plans. Evaluator 2, Erica Floyd Thomas: Ms. Thomas is the chief of the Bureau of Medicaid Policy. She has worked for the Agency since 2001. Her Medicaid experience includes developing policies for hospitals, community behavioral health, residential treatment, and contract oversight. Before serving as bureau chief, she served as an Agency administrator from 2014 through 2017. Ms. Thomas oversaw the policy research and development process for all Medicaid medical, behavioral, dental, facility, and clinic coverage policies to ensure they were consistent with the state Plan and federal Medicaid requirements. Evaluator 3, Rachel LaCroix, Ph.D.: Dr. LaCroix is an administrator in the Agency’s Performance Evaluation and Research Unit. She has worked for the Agency since 2003. All her positions have been in the Medicaid program. Dr. LaCroix has served in her current position since 2011. She works with the performance measures and surveys that the current SMMC providers report to the Agency. Dr. LaCroix is a nationally recognized expert on healthcare quality metrics like HEDIS. She is also an appointee on the National Association of Medicaid Directors’ task force for national performance measures. Evaluator 4, Damon Rich: Mr. Rich has worked for the Agency since April 2009. He is the chief of the Agency’s Bureau of Recipient and Provider Assistance. This bureau interacts directly with AHCA’s current SMMC care providers about any issues they have, and with Medicaid recipients, usually about their eligibility or plan enrollment. Before Mr. Rich was a bureau chief, he worked as a field office manager for the Agency. Mr. Rich’s experience as bureau chief and field office manager includes oversight of the current SMMC Specialty Plans. Evaluator 5. Eunice Medina: Ms. Medina is the chief of the Agency’s Bureau of Medicaid Plan Management, which includes a staff of over 60 individuals, who manage the current SMMC contracts. Her experience and duties essentially encompass all aspects of the current SMMC plans. Ms. Medina started working with the Agency in 2014. Evaluator 6, Devona “DD” Pickle: Ms. Pickle most recently joined the Agency in 2011. She also worked for the Agency from November 2008 through November 2010. Ms. Pickle’s Agency experience all relates in some way to the Medicaid program. Since March 2013, Ms. Pickle has served as an administrator over managed care policy and contract development in the Bureau of Medicaid Policy. Her job duties include working with the current SMMC contractors. Ms. Pickle is also a Florida licensed mental health counselor. Evaluator 7, Tracy Hurd-Alvarez: Ms. Hurd-Alvarez has worked for the Agency’s Medicaid program since 1997. Since 2014, she has been a field office manager, overseeing compliance monitoring for all the current SMMC contractors. Before assuming her current position, Ms. Hurd-Alvarez implemented the LTC SMMC program. Evaluator 8, Gay Munyon: Ms. Munyon is currently the Chief of the Bureau of Medicaid Fiscal Agent Operations. Ms. Munyon began working with the Agency in April 2013. Ms. Munyon’s bureau oversees fulfillment of the Agency’s contract with the current SMMC fiscal agent. Her unit’s responsibilities include systems maintenance and modifications and overseeing the fiscal agent, which answers phone calls, processes claims, and processes applications. Ms. Munyon has 25 years of experience working with the Medicaid program. Evaluator 9, Laura Noyes: Ms. Noyes started working for the Agency in April 2011. Her years of Agency experience all relate to the Medicaid program, including overseeing six current comprehensive managed care plans by identifying trends in contractual non-compliance. Evaluator 10, Brian Meyer: Mr. Meyer is a CPA, who has worked for the Agency in the Medicaid program since 2011. He is currently chief of the Bureau of Medicaid Data Analytics. Mr. Meyer’s primary responsibility is overseeing the capitation rates for the current SMMC contractors. His experience includes Medicaid plan financial statement analysis, surplus requirement calculation analysis and, in general, all types of financial analysis necessary to understand financial performance of the state’s Medicaid plans. Evaluator 11, Ann Kaperak: Since April 2015, Ms. Kaperak has served as an administrator in the Agency’s Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity. Ms. Kaperak’s unit oversees the fraud and abuse efforts of the current SMMC plans. She also worked for the Medicaid program from November 2012 through May 2014. Ms. Kaperak worked as a regulatory compliance manager for Anthem/Amerigroup’s Florida Medicaid program between May 2014 and April 2015. Positive and Community challenge the Agency’s plan selections by questioning the qualifications of the evaluators. The first part of their argument is that the evaluators did not have sufficient knowledge about HIV/AIDS and its treatment. The evidence does not prove the theory. For instance, Positive’s argument relies upon criticizing the amount of clinical experience evaluators had managing patients with HIV/AIDS. That approach minimizes the fact that the managed care plan characteristics involve so much more than disease- specific considerations. For instance, many of the components require determining if the respondent provided required documents, verifying conflict of interest documents, management structure, quality control measures, and the like. General SRCs asked for things like dispute resolution models (SRC 16), claims processing information (SRC 17), and fraud and abuse compliance plans (SRC 31). MMA SRCs included criteria, like telemedicine (SRC 4), demonstrated progress obtaining executed provider agreements (SRC 6), and a credentialing process (SRC 12). Specialty SRCs included criteria like copies of contracts for managed care for the proposed specialty population (SRC 1), specific and detailed criteria defining the proposed specialty population (SRC 4), and the like. The evidence does not prove that disease-specific experience is necessary to evaluate responses to these and other SRCs. SRC 6 involving HEDIS data and SRC 14 involving CAHPS data are two good examples. They required respondents to input data into a spreadsheet. All the evaluators had to do was determine what those numbers showed. Evaluation did not require any understanding of disease or how the measures were created. All the evaluator had to know was the number in the spreadsheet. The second part of the evaluator qualification criticisms is that the evaluators did not give adequate weight to some responses. Positive and Community just disagree with the measures requested and the evaluation of them. They conclude from that disagreement that the evaluators’ qualifications were deficient. The argument is not persuasive. The last sentence of paragraph 69 of Positive’s proposed recommended order exemplifies the criticisms of Positive and Community of the evaluators’ qualifications. It states, “The fact that PHC [Positive] was ranked last among competing HIV plans shows that the SRC evaluators did not understand enough about managing individuals with HIV/AIDs to score its proposal competently.” The argument is circular and “ipse dixit”. It does not carry the day. The collective knowledge and experience of the evaluators, with a total of 128 years of Medicaid experience, made them capable of reasonably evaluating the managed care plan proposals, including the Specialty plan proposals. The record certainly does not prove otherwise. EVALUATION PROCESS The Agency assigned the evaluators to the SRCs that it determined they were qualified to evaluate and score. The Agency did not assign entire responses to an evaluator for review. Instead it elected a piecemeal review process assigning various evaluators to various sections, the SRCs of each response. Paragraph 30 of the Agency’s proposed recommended order describes this decision as follows: Although the ITN had contemplated ranking each vendor by evaluator, based on an example in the ITN, such ranking presumed a process where all evaluators scored all or nearly all of the responses to the ITN, which had occurred in the procurement five years ago. In this procurement, each evaluator reviewed only a subset of SRCs based on their knowledge, and experience; therefore, ranking by evaluator was not logical because each had a different maximum point score. The initial SRC scoring assignments were: General SRCs 1 through 4, LTC SRCs 1 and 2, and Specialty SRC 1: Marie Donnelly, Laura Noyes, and Brian Meyer. General SRCs 5 through 8, MMA SRCs 1 through 7, LTC SRCs 3 and 4, and Specialty SRCs 1 and 2: Marie Donnelly, Erica Floyd- Thomas, and Rachel LaCroix. General SRCs 9 through 14, MMA SRCs 8 through 11, LTC SRCs 5 through 7, and Specialty SRC 4: Damon Rich, Eunice Medina, and DD Pickle. General SRCs 15 through 17, MMA SRCs 12 and 13, and LTC SRCs 8 through 10: Damon Rich, Tracy Hurd-Alvarez, Gay Munyon. General SRCs 18 through 25, MMA SRCs 14 through 20, LTC SRCs 11 and 12, and Specialty SRC 5: Erica Floyd-Thomas, Eunice Medina, and DD Pickle. General SRCs 26 through 33 and LTC SRC 13: Gay Munyon, Ann Kaperak, and Brian Meyer. General SRCs 34 through 36 and MMA SRC 21: Marie Donnelly, Rachel LaCroix, and Tracy Hurd-Alvarez. The ranking process presented in the ITN and described in paragraphs 62-64, contemplated ranking each respondent by evaluator. The Agency carried this process over from an earlier procurement. In this procurement, despite what the ITN said, the Agency assigned responsibilities so that each evaluator reviewed only a subset of SRCs. Therefore, the ranking of responses by evaluator presented in the ITN could not work. It was not even possible because no one evaluator reviewed a complete response and because each SRC had a different maximum point score. Instead, the Agency, contrary to the terms of the ITN, ranked proposals by averaging the “total point scores” assigned by all of the evaluators. The Agency considered issuing an addendum advising the parties of the change. The addendum would have informed the respondents and provided them an opportunity to challenge the change. The Agency elected not to issue an addendum. EVALUATION AND SCORING The evaluators began scoring on November 6, 2017, with a completion deadline of December 29, 2017. The 11 evaluators had to score approximately 230 separate responses to the ITNs. The evaluators had to score 67,175 separate items to complete the scoring for all responses for all regions for all types of plans. No one at the Agency evaluated how much time it should take to score a particular item. None of the parties to this proceeding offered persuasive evidence to support a finding that scoring any particular item would or should take a specific length of time or that scoring all of the responses would or should take a specific length of time. Evaluators scored the responses in conference room F at the Agency’s headquarters. This secure room was the exclusive location for evaluation and scoring. Each evaluator had a dedicated workspace equipped with all tools and resources necessary for the task. The workspaces included a computer terminal for each evaluator. The system allowed evaluators to review digital copies of the ITN and proposals and to enter evaluation points in spreadsheets created for the purpose of recording scores. Evaluators also had access to hard copies of the proposals and the ITN. The Agency required evaluators to sign in and to sign out. The sign-in and sign-out sheets record the significant amount of time the evaluators spent evaluating proposals. Evaluators were not permitted to communicate with each other about the responses. To minimize distractions, the Agency prohibited cell phones, tablets and other connected devices in the room. The Agency also authorized and encouraged the evaluators to delegate their usual responsibilities. Agency proctors observed the room and evaluators throughout the scoring process. They were available to answer general and procedural questions and to ensure that the evaluators signed in and signed out. A log sheet documented how much time each evaluator spent in the scoring conference room. Some evaluators took extensive notes. For example, Ms. Median took over 200 pages of notes. Similarly, Ms. Munyon took nearly 400 pages of typewritten notes. The evaluators worked hard. None, other than Dr. LaCroix, testified that they did not have enough time to do their job. The computer system also automatically tracked the evaluators’ progress. Tracking reports showed the number of items assigned to each evaluator and the number of scoring items completed. The first status report was generated on December 8, 2017, approximately halfway through the scheduled scoring. At that time, only 28 percent of the scoring items were complete. Ms. Barrett usually ran the status reports in the morning. She made them available to the evaluators to review. The pace of evaluation caused concern about timely completion and prompted discussions of ways to accelerate scoring. Because it was clear that the majority of the evaluators would not complete scoring their SRCs by December 29, 2017, the Agency extended the scoring deadline to January 12, 2018. It also extended the hours for conference room use. Most respondents filed proposals for more than one type of plan and more than one region. This fact combined with the provision in the instructions saying that all statewide SRC responses must be identical for each region and that scores would transfer to each applicable region’s score sheets, enabled evaluators to score many SRCs just once. The system would then auto-populate the scores to the same SRC for all proposals by that respondent. This time saving measure permitted scoring on many of the items to be almost instantaneous after review of the first response to an SRC. The fact that so many respondents submitted proposals for so many regions and types of plans provided the Agency another opportunity for time-saving. The Agency loaded Adobe Pro on the evaluators’ computers as a timesaving measure. This program allowed the evaluators to compare a bidder’s Comprehensive Plan Proposal to the same company’s regional and Specialty Plan proposals. If the Adobe Pro comparison feature showed that the proposal response was the same for each plan, the Agency permitted evaluators to score the response once and assign the same score for each item where the respondent provided the same proposal. This speeded scoring. It, however, meant that for SRCs where evaluators did this, that they were not reviewing the SRC response in the specific context of the specialty plan population, each of which had specific and limited characteristics that made them different from the broader General and MMA plan populations. This is significant because so many SRCs required narrative responses where context would matter. There is no Specialty SRCs A-4 instruction requirement for specialty plans analogous to the requirement that responses for statewide SRCs must be identical for each region. In other words, the instructions do not say all SRCs marked as statewide must be identical for each specialty plan proposal and that the Agency will evaluate each Statewide SRC once and transfer the score to each applicable Specialty Plan score. In fact, according to the procurement officer, the Agency expected that evaluators would separately evaluate and score the statewide SRCs for Comprehensive Plans and for Specialty Plans, even if the same bidder submitted them. Despite the Agency’s expectation and the absence of an authorizing provision in the ITN, many evaluators, relying on the Adobe Pro tool, copied the SRC scores they gave to a respondent’s comprehensive plan proposal to its specialty plan proposal if the respondent submitted the same response to an SRC for a Comprehensive Plan and a Specialty Plan. For instance, Ms. Thomas (Evaluator 2) and Ms. Munyon (Evaluator 8) did this to save time. Ms. Donnelly (Evaluator 1) did this even when the comprehensive and specialty responses were not identical. This does not amount to the independent evaluation of the responses pledged by the ITN. On separate days, Evaluator 1 scored 1,315 items, 954 items, 779 items and 727 items. On separate days, Evaluator 2 scored 613 items, 606 items, 720 items, 554 items and 738 items. Evaluator 4 scored 874 items on one day. Evaluator 5 scored 813 items in one day. Evaluator 6 scored 1,001 items in one day. Evaluator 8 scored 635 items in one day. The record does not identify the items scored. It also does not permit determining how many of the item scores resulted from auto-population or assignment of scores based upon previous scoring of an identical response. It bears repeating, however, that the record does not support any finding on how long scoring the response to one SRC or an entire response could reasonably be expected to take. Even with the extended scoring period and time-saving measures, the Agency concluded that Evaluator 3 would not be able to finish all of the SRCs assigned to her. Rather than extend the deadline for scoring a second time, the Agency decided to reassign the nine of Evaluator 3’s SRCs that she had not begun scoring to two other evaluators. The Agency did not include scores of other SRCs for which Evaluator 3 had not completed scoring. The Agency only counted Evaluator 3’s scores for an SRC if she scored the SRC for everyone. The result was that only two people scored nine of the Specialty Plan SRCs. The Agency did not reassign all of Evaluator 3’s SRCs’. It only reassigned the SRCs to evaluators who were qualified to evaluate the items, who were not already assigned those items to score, and who had already finished or substantially completed their own evaluations. The decision to reassign the SRCs was not based on any scoring that had already been completed. The Agency did not allow changes to data submitted by any of the vendors. It allowed vendors to exchange corrupted electronic files for ones which could be opened and allowed vendors to exchange electronic files to match up with the paper copies that had been submitted. The Agency allowed Community to correct its submission where it lacked a signature on its transmittal letter and allowed Community to exchange an electronic document that would not open. It did not allow Community to change its reported HEDIS scores, which were submitted in the decimal form required by the instructions. Community erred in the numbers that it reported. There is no evidence showing that other vendors received a competitive or unfair advantage over Community in the Agency’s review of the SMI Specialty Plan submission for Region 10. There was no evidence that the Agency allowed any other vendors to change any substantive information in their submittals for that proposed specialty in that region. HEIDIS ISSUES Positive asserts that Simply’s proposal is non- responsive because Simply submitted HEDIS data from the general Medicaid population in response to SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14. Positive contends that Simply obtained a competitive advantage by supplying non-HIV/AIDS HEDIS data in response to SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 because HIV/AIDS patients are generally a sicker group and require more care and because some HEDIS measures cannot be reported for an HIV/AIDS population. HEDIS stands for Healthcare Effectiveness and Data Information Set and is a set of standardized performance measures widely used in the healthcare industry. The instructions for both SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 provide, in relevant part: The respondent shall describe its experience in achieving quality standards with populations similar to the target population described in this solicitation. The respondent shall include in table format, the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible), the respondent’s results for the HEDIS measures specified below for each of the last two (2) years (CY 2015/HEDIS 2016 and CY 2016/HEDIS 2017) for the respondent’s three (3) largest Medicaid Contracts (measured by number of enrollees). If the respondent does not have HEDIS results for at least three (3) Medicaid Contracts, the respondent shall provide commercial HEDIS measures for the respondent’s largest Contracts. If the Respondent has Florida Medicaid HEDIS results, it shall include the Florida Medicaid experience as one (1) of three (3) states for the last two (2) years. (JE 1 at 75 (SRC 6); JE 1 at 158 (MMA SRC 14)). SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 instruct respondents to provide HEDIS measures for “the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible).” Id.. TANF, ABD, and dual eligible are eligibility classifications for the Medicaid population. The Agency sought information regarding the target Medicaid-eligible population, even from respondents proposing a Specialty Plan, because Specialty Plans are required to serve all of the healthcare needs of their recipients, not just the needs related to the criteria making those recipients eligible for the Specialty Plan. Following the instructions in SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14, Simply provided HEDIS data from the Medicaid-eligible population for its three largest Medicaid contracts as measured by the total number of enrollees. For the requested Florida HEDIS data, Simply utilized legacy HEDIS data from Amerigroup Florida, Inc., a Comprehensive Plan. Amerigroup and Simply had merged in October of 2017. Therefore, at the time of submission of Simply’s proposal, the HEDIS data from Amerigroup Florida was the data from Simply’s largest Medicaid contract in Florida for the period requested by the SRCs. Positive asserts that the Agency impermissibly altered scoring criteria after the proposals were submitted when the Agency corrected technical issues within a HEDIS Measurement Tool spreadsheet. SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 required the submission of numeric data for the requested HEDIS performance measures. To simplify submission of the numeric data for the requested HEDIS performance measures, the Agency required respondents to utilize a HEDIS Measurement Tool spreadsheet. The evaluation criteria for SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 provided that respondents will be awarded points if the reported HEDIS measures exceed the national or regional mean for such performance measures. Some respondents, including Positive, entered “N/A,” “small denominator,” or other text inputs into the HEDIS Measurement Tool. During the evaluation and scoring process, the Agency discovered that if a respondent input any text into the HEDIS Measurement Tool, the tool would assign random amounts of points, even though respondents had not input measureable, numeric data. The Agency reasonably resolved the problem by removing any text and inserting a zero in place of the text. The correction of the error in the HEDIS Measurement Tool prevented random points from being awarded to respondents and did not alter scores in any way contrary to the ITN. It was reasonable and fair to all respondents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order rejecting all r esponses to the ITNs to provide a Medicaid Managed Care plan for patients with HIV/AIDS in Regions 10 and 11. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order inviting Community to negotiate to provide Medicaid Managed Care plan in Region 10 for patients with serious mental illness. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order inviting Community to negotiate to provide a Medicaid Managed Care plan in Region 10 for patients with serious mental illness. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order inviting Community to negotiate to provide a Medicaid Managed Care plan in Region 10 for c hild w elfare specialty services. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order awarding Wellcare of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Staywell Health Plan of Florida, a contract for a specialty Medicaid Managed Care plan for patients with Serious Mental Illness in Region 10. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the Petition in Case No. 18-3513. DONE AND ENTERED this day of , , in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 day of , .
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the methodology for grouping hospitals adopted by the HCCB pursuant to Sections 4D- 1.03, 4D-1.12(1) and 4D-1.12(2), F.A.C., constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as being arbitrary or capricious? Mercy has also raised one issue as to whether the grouping methodology is violative of constitutional guarantees of administrative equal protection and due process. This issue, however, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Findings Of Fact Introduction. The HCCB and Its Hospital Grouping Function. The HCCB was formed pursuant to Part II of Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1979). The HCCB was created pursuant to the specific authority of Section 395.503, Florida Statutes (1979), in order to further the accomplishment of legislative intent contained in Section 395.5025, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.): It is the intent of the Legislature to assure that adequate health care is affordable and accessible to all the citizens of this state. To further the accomplishment of this goal, the Hospital Cost Containment Board is created to advise the Legislature regarding health care costs; inflationary trends in health care costs; the impact of health care costs on the state budget; the impact of hospital charges and third-party reimbursement mechanisms on health care costs; and the education of consumers and providers of health care services in order to encourage price competition in the health care marketplace. The Legislature finds and declares that rising hospital costs and cost shifting are of vital concern to the people of this state because of the danger that hospital services are becoming unaffordable and thus inaccessible to residents of the state. It is further declared that hospital costs should be contained through improved competition between hospitals and improved competition between insurers, through financial incentives which foster efficiency instead of inefficiency, and through sincere initiatives on behalf of providers, insurers, and consumers to contain costs. As a safety net, it is the intent of the Legislature to establish a program of prospective budget review and approval in the event that competition-oriented methods do not adequately contain costs and the access of Floridians to adequate hospital care becomes jeopardized because of unaffordable costs. As a part of its responsibilities the HCCB is required, "after consulting with appropriate professional and governmental advisory bodies and holding public hearings, and considering existing and proposed systems of accounting and reporting utilized by hospitals," to specify a uniform system of financial reporting for hospitals. Section 395.507(1), Florida Statutes Suppl.) to: In order to allow "meaningful comparisons" of data reported by hospitals under the uniform system of financial reporting, the HCCB is required by Section 395.507(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.) to group hospitals according to characteristics, including, but not limited to, a measure of the nature and range of services provided, teaching hospital status, number of medical specialties represented on the hospital staff, percentage of Medicare inpatient days, average daily census, geographical differences, and, when available, case mix. In providing for grouping of hospital, the HCCB is required to establish ten general hospital groups and additional speciality groups "as needed." Section 395.507(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). No hospital group can contain fewer than five hospitals, however. Id. Grouping is to be provided by rule. Id. Pursuant to Section 395.509(1), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), every Florida hospital is required to file its budget with the HCCB for "approval." The budget is required to be filed on forms adopted by the HCCB and based on the uniform system of financial reporting. Section 395.507(6), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). To determine whether a hospital's budget is to be approved, all hospitals in Florida are to be placed in groups. A hospital's budget is then compared to the budgets of the hospitals assigned to its group. Hospital groups for this purpose are established pursuant to Section 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The provisions of Section 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), are identical to Section 395.507(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). In determining whether a hospital's budget is to be approved, Section 305.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), establishes two initial "screens" which a hospital must meet based upon the hospital's gross revenue per adjusted admission. The term "gross revenue" is defined as: the sum of daily hospital service charges, ambulatory service charges, ancillary service charges, and other operating revenue. Gross revenues do not include contributions, donations, legacies, or bequests made to a hospital without restriction by the donors. Section 395.502(11), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). "Adjusted admission" is defined by Section 395.502(1), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), as: the sum of acute admissions and intensive care admissions divided by the ratio of inpatient revenues generated from acute, intensive, ambulatory, and ancillary patient services to gross revenues. Gross revenues per adjusted admission (hereinafter referred to as "GRAA") is therefore the total hospital ambulatory and ancillary service charges and other operating revenue for all acute and intensive care admissions divided by the ratio of inpatient revenues from acute, intensive, ambulatory and ancillary patient services to gross revenue; or, stated more simply , inpatient revenue per admission. The "screens" which must be met in order for a hospital's budget to be approved upon initial determination are: (1) the hospital's GRAA must not be in the upper 20th percentile of the hospitals within its group; and (2) the rate of increase in a hospital's GRAA as contained in its current budget compared to the hospital's GRAA as reported in its most recently approved budget must not exceed a "maximum allowable rate of increase" if the hospital's GRAA is in the 50th to 79th percentile of the hospitals in its group. If a hospital's GRAA is in the 49th percentile or less of the hospitals in its group, its budget is automatically approved. In determining whether a hospital's GRAA fails the screens, Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), provides: Percentile values for gross operating revenue per adjusted admission shall be determined monthly by the board for each group established pursuant to s. 395.507(2) by ranking projected gross operating revenues per adjusted admission contained in the most recently approved or submitted budgets for the hospitals in each group, including any hospital that is contesting its grouping assignment. In determining the applicability of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b), the board shall consider the basis of the projections by the hospital, including consideration of the following factors: any increase in patient admissions caused by the creation of preferred provider organizations or health maintenance organiza- tions, population increases, changes in the hospital case mix or in services offered, changes in technology, or other similar factors. If a hospital's GRAA fails either of the screens (its GRAA is in the upper 20th percentile of its group or its GRAA rate of increase is excessive and its GRAA is in the 50th to 79th percentile of its group) that hospital's budget must be reviewed by the HCCB "to determine whether the rate of increase contained in the budget is just, reasonable, and not excessive." Section 395.509(5), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Pursuant to Section 395.509(6), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), the HCCB is authorized, if it first determines under Section 395.509(5), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), that the hospital's rate of increase is not just, reasonable and not excessive, to amend or disapprove any hospital's budget which does not meet the two screens of Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), to establish a rate of increase which is "just, reasonable, and not excessive." The HCCB's authority under Section 395.509(6), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), applies only if the HCCB first complies with the following pertinent provisions of Section 395.509(5), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.): The board shall disapprove any budget, or part thereof, as excess that contains a rate of increase which is not necessary to maintain the existing level of services of the hospital or, if the hospital increases its existing level of services, any amount not necessary to accomplish that increase. In making such deterioration . . . the board shall consider the following criteria: The efficiency, sufficiency, and adequacy of the services and facilities provided by the hospital. The cost of providing services and the value of the services to the public. The ability of the hospital to improve services and facilities. The ability of the hospital to reduce the cost of services. The ability of the hospital to earn a reasonable rate of return. The accuracy of previous budget submissions by the hospital compared to the actual experience of the hospital the The number of patient days reimbursed by Medicare or Medicaid. The number of patient days attributable to the medically indigent. The research and educational services provided by the hospital if it is a teaching hospital. The projected expenditures or revenues for or from construction of facilities or new services which are subject to regulation under s. 381.494 may not be included in the budget of a hospital until the construction or services are approved or authorized by the state health planning agency. The cost of opening a new hospital, for first 3 years. The Challenged Rules. In carrying out its duty to establish a uniform system of financial reporting, the HCCB adopted Section 4D- 1.03, F.A.C., which provides: The Board, pursuant to Section 395.505, Florida Statutes, hereby adopts and establishes a uniform system for hospitals to file the prior year audited actual data report, the interim report of financial and statistical information. This system is described and the forms, instructions, and definitions therefor are contained in the Board's publication entitled Hospital Uniform Reporting System Manual. The Chart of Accounts adopted pursuant to Section 395.507(1), Florida Statutes, and this Chapter 4D-1, and as hereafter modified, shall be utilized by each hospital for submitting the prior year audited actual data report, the interim report and the budget report. In order to determine whether a hospital's budget should be automatically approved under Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), the HCCB adopted Section 4D-1.12, F.A.C. Sections 4D-1.12(1) and (2), F.A.C., provide: The staff shall review the budget report based upon the hospital's ranking for gross revenue per adjusted admission within its group and upon its rate of change in gross revenue per adjusted admission in the proposed budget as required in Section 395.507(6), Florida Statutes, and the most recently Board approved budget. As part of the budget report review process, groupings of hospitals shall be established according to the characteristics and methodology as outlined in Chapter V, Section B, Hospital Unit Uniform Reporting System Manual and as outlined in Section 395.507(2), Florida Statutes. Percentile values for gross revenue per adjusted admission shall be determined monthly for each group by ranking projected gross revenue per adjusted admission contained in the most recently approved or submitted budgets for the hospitals in each group, including any hospital that is contesting its grouping assignment. 12. Sections 4D-1.03 and 4D-1.12(1) and (2), F.A.C., are the rules challenged by Mercy. These rules, as quoted herein, were effective as of November 5, 1984. The rules were originally adopted effective June 30, 1980. The rules were amended to their present wording in response to "major" legislation enacted in 1984 which amended Part II, Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1983), and granted authority to the HCCB for the first time to approve, disapprove or amend hospital budgets under certain circumstances. Chapter 79-106, Laws of Florida. The challenged rules essentially provide that the HCCB, when grouping of hospitals for purposes of the uniform system of financial reporting and for purposes of reviewing and comparing budgets to determine if they should be automatically approved under Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), will apply the grouping methodology outlined in Chapter V, Section B of the Hospital Uniform Reporting System Manual (hereinafter referred to as the "Manual"). Section 4D-1.18, F.A.C., also adopted effective November 5, 1984, incorporates by reference the Manual within each rule in Chapter 4D-1, F.A.C., which references the Manual. This rule has not been challenged in this proceeding. The Hospital Grouping Methodology and Its Development. Generally, Chapter V, Section B of the Manual, sets out the objective of the grouping methodology, the procedure for forming groups, a list of the variables considered in forming groups and the weight to be accorded each variable. The goals of the grouping methodology, as provided in the Manual, are to "facilitate comparison of hospitals with similar patient mix and market conditions" and to "develop groups of sufficient size . . . to assure statistically valid comparisons." Based upon the procedure for forming groups contained in the Manual, hospitals are grouped into nine, non-teaching, short-term hospital groups, one Major teaching hospital group and a number of specialty hospital groups. It is the method of grouping hospitals into nine short-term hospital groups which is at issue in this proceeding. Assignment of hospitals to the nine short-term hospital groups is accomplished through the use of the "McQueen's K-means clustering algorithm included in the cluster analysis t computer program package CLAN developed by T.D. Klastorin and Robert Ledingham (June, 1980 version)." A clustering analysis is a method of grouping a set of objects (in this case, hospitals) into relatively homogeneous groups. The goal of a clustering algorithm is to minimize the differences between the members of the group. The objects are grouped based upon a set of variables which are considered significant for purposes of comparing the objects. In order to account for the significance of each variable, the variables are weighted. The variables have a numerical score and after weighing, the weighted sum of the variables for each object is compared and the objects are grouped based upon their variable scores. There are a number of clustering algorithms which can be used to group hospitals. The HCCB chose to use the "McQueen's K-means" clustering algorithm. The use of McQueens K-means clustering algorithm has not bean challenged in this proceeding. Nor does the evidence establish that the selection of McQueen's K-means clustering algorithm is arbitrary and capricious. The clustering algorithm is performed by computer. The computer program utilized by the HCCB to perform the algorithm is called "CLAN" and was developed by T.D. Klastorin and Robert Ledingham. The evidence at the hearing supports a finding that the selection of this computer program is reasonable. Once hospitals are grouped, they are notified of their group designation and allowed to request reconsideration of their group assignment. The request must made within thirty days after notification. Following the creation of the HCCB in 1979, Price Waterhouse & Company was engaged by the HCCB as a consultant to assist in still establishing an appropriate hospital grouping methodology. The HCCB also created an advisory committee to assist the HCCB and Price Waterhouse & Company in developing the grouping methodology. This committee, designated as the Technical Advisory Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "TAC") was comprised of individuals from the hospital industry and academia and certified public accountants. The TAC worked with Price Waterhouse & Company in developing the grouping methodology and the uniform reporting system. Because of time constraints, the TAC's involvement with evaluating the methodology was limited. The HCCB ultimately decided to pattern the grouping methodology it adopted after the grouping methodology then being used by the State of Washington, as recommended by Price Waterhouse & Company. The Washington system was not adopted exactly; a number of changes to Washington's methodology were made to the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB. Mercy has proposed several findings of fact beginning on page 35 and ending on page 38 of its proposed order concerning the "Differences in Washington Hospital Characteristics and Grouping Methodology Model." Those proposed findings of fact can be and are hereby disposed of by the following finding of fact: because of differences in the hospital industries of the States of Florida and Washington and other differences between the two States, Florida's grouping methodology cannot be justified solely on the basis that Washington's grouping methodology was used as a starting point in developing Florida's grouping methodology. Those differences, however, do not support a finding of fact that Florida's grouping methodology is arbitrary and capricious since the Washington system was not adopted without substantial modifications, including a reduction of Washington's eighteen variables initially to fourteen and ultimately to seven, and the use of unequal weighting of the variables. The TAC reviewed and discussed the grouping methodology initially approved by the HCCB prior to its approval. Some of Mercy's witnesses, who were members of the TAC, indicated during their testimony that the TAC never decided anything because no "vote" was ever taken of TAC members and that the TAC did not advise the HCCB but instead advised the staff of the HCCB. Their testimony in this regard has been given little weight. The fact that no formal "vote" was taken of TAC members does not mean that the TAC did not take a position on matters it discussed. The consensus of the TAC could be, and was, gleaned from its discussions. The staff of the HCCB in fact reported decisions of the TAC to the HCCB verbally and by minutes of TAC meetings. Although the accuracy of staff's reports was sometimes questioned, no question was raised about whether TAC had taken positions. The fact that the HCCB staff reported TAC actions to the HCCB also disputes the testimony to the effect that TAC did not advise the HCCB but instead advised the staff of the HCCB. While it may be true that TAC did not deal directly with the HCCB, its analysis was reported, to the HCCB. The HCCB ultimately adopted rules effective June 30, 1980, which incorporated by reference to the Manual, the general outline of the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB. The TAC ceased to exist following adoption of the HCCB's initial rules. Two new advisory committees were formed: a Technical Advisory Panel (hereinafter referred to as "TAP") on grouping and a TAP for financial analysis. The grouping TAP was made up of individuals from the hospital industry. The grouping TAP met in November and December of 1980 and reviewed the results of test runs of the grouping methodology initially adopted by the HCCB. The results of the initial run were described as "bizarre." This run used equal weighting of the variables. Equal weighting was abandoned and three to four more test runs were made and reviewed by the grouping TAP. After each run the variable weights were adjusted until the results appeared to be "reasonable." The HCCB also established a committee consisting of members of the HCCB designated as the Research and Development Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "R & D Committee"). The R & D Committee reviewed the results of test runs and also found the final groups reasonable. The HCCB met in January, 1981, and adopted the grouping methodology with the adjusted variable weights arrived at as a result of the test runs for use in establishing hospital groups for use in 1981. The grouping methodology was reviewed every year after its initial adoption in 1980. The methodology was reviewed by the HCCB, HCCB's staff, the TAP's and the R & D Committee each year. Throughout the period from 1980 to the present, criticisms of the grouping methodology have been made. Some of these criticisms were agreed with and others were rejected by the HCCB or its staff. Following review of the grouping methodology by the TAP's and the R & D Committee in 1981, the original fourteen variables were reduced to eight. In January, 1982, the weight of one of the variables was changed and one variable was replaced by another variable. In December, 1982, a variable was deleted; seven variables remained. In 1983, clustering analysis was limited in its application to the formation of short-term acute care general hospital groups. In 1984, following the significant amendment of Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1983), the HCCB adopted the present challenged rules. The rules were effective November 5, 1984. The only change in the grouping methodology approved by the HCCB was the substitution of the Florida price level index variable for percent of population over age 65. The weight assigned to the Florida price level index was the same as the weight that had been assigned to the percent of population over age 65. The changes made to the grouping methodology in 1984 were first suggested by the staff of the HCCB to the grouping TAP in June of 1984. The grouping TAP met on July 11, 1984 and considered and discussed the proposed changes. A number of problem areas were discussed. Although no test run results were presented at this TAP meeting, they were provided to TAP members before the HCCB adopted the grouping methodology changes. Concerns about the geographic or exogenous variables expressed at the grouping TAP meeting suggested a belief that too much or too little emphasis was being placed on geographic considerations. Mercy has proposed a number of findings of fact beginning on page 33 and ending on page 35 of its proposed order concerning the significance of the changes made by the Legislature in 1984 to Part II of Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1983). Those proposed findings of fact essentially deal with the fact that the powers of the HCCB after the 1984 amendments may have a more significant impact on hospitals and that, therefore, the grouping methodology is of greater interest to hospitals. Mercy's proposed findings of fact are not, however, relevant in determining whether the challenged rules are arbitrary and capricious. The fact that the effect of the grouping methodology on a hospital may now be different does not mean that the use of the grouping methodology, as modified after the 1984 legislative changes to the law, which was developed when the purpose of grouping was different, is not an appropriate methodology. The evidence does not support such a conclusion. Therefore, to the extent that Mercy's proposed findings of fact under Section II, A, of its proposed order have not already been made, they are rejected as unnecessary. Mercy and the HCCB have proposed findings of fact as to whether Mercy has ever questioned the HCCB's grouping methodology since it was first adopted prior to instituting this proceeding. Those proposed findings of fact are not deemed relevant in determining whether the grouping methodology is arbitrary and capricious. If the grouping methodology is in fact arbitrary and capricious, the fact that Mercy did not challenge the methodology when it was first adopted will not make it any less arbitrary and capricious today. Mercy's Challenge. A. Introduction. Mercy is a not-for-profit, general acute care hospital with 550 licensed beds located in Dade County, Florida. Mercy has raised a number of points in this proceeding and its proposed order in challenging the rules in question. All of those points, according to Mercy, prove that the rules are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. In determining whether the facts support such a conclusion, the following standard must be kept in mind: [I]n a 120.54 hearing, the hearing officer must look to the legislative authority for the rule and determine whether or not the proposed rule is encompassed within the grant. The burden is upon one who attacks the proposed rule to show that the agency, if it adopts the rule, would exceed its authority; that the requirements of the rule are not appropriate to the ends specified in the legislative act; that the requirements contained in the rule are not reasonably related to the purpose of the enabling legislation or that the proposed rule or the requirements thereof are arbitrary or capricious. A capricious action is one which is taken without thought or reason or irrationally. An arbitrary decision is one not supported by facts or logic or despotic. Administrative discretion must be reasoned and based upon competent substantial evidence. Competent substantial evidence has been described as such evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Agrico Chemical Company v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, 365 So.2d 759, 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 376 So.2d 74 (1979). Additionally, the following must be kept in mind: The well recognized general rule is that agencies are to be accorded wide discretion in the exercise of their lawful rulemaking authority, clearly conferred or fairly implied and consistent with the agencies' general statutory duties. . . . An agency's construction of the statute it administers is entitled to great weight and is not to be overturned unless clearly erroneous. . . . Where, as here, the agency's interpretation of a statute has been promulgated in rulemaking proceedings, the validity of such rule must be upheld if it is reasonably related to the purposes of the legislation interpreted and it is not arbitrary and capricious. The burden is upon petitioner in a rule challenge to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the rule or its requirements are arbitrary and capricious. . . . Moreover, the agency's interpretation of a statute need not be the sole possible interpretation or even the most desirable one; it need only be within the range of possible interpretations. Department of Professional Regulation v. Durrani, 455 So. 2d 515, 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The witnesses who testified in this proceeding who were accepted as experts were qualified in a number of different areas. Those witnesses qualified as experts in statistical analysis or related areas and health care finance rendered opinions as to the appropriateness of the HCCB's grouping methodology. The method of grouping hospitals adopted by the HCCB is a statistical method. Therefore, the determination of whether the HCCB's methodology is arbitrary and capricious depends largely upon whether the methodology is statistically sound. Mercy and the HCCB therefore presented the testimony of witnesses qualified in the area of statistics: Rick Zimmerman, Ph.D., an expert in statistical analysis and social science statistics (for Mercy), and Duane Meeter, Ph.D., an expert in economics and applied statistical analysis and Frank Fox, Jr., Ph.D., an expert in applied statistics (for the HCCB). All three witnesses were knowledgeable and credible. Dr. Zimmerman testified that the HCCB's grouping methodology was "clearly inappropriate." Dr. Zimmerman's opinion was based upon a three step analysis in which he determined: (1) whether the variables selected by the HCCB are appropriate; (2) whether the weights assigned to the variables by the HCCB are appropriate; and, (3) the effect changing the variables and/or weights would have on hospital groups. The results of Dr. Zimmerman's analysis, which formed the basis for his opinion that the HCCB's grouping methodology is not appropriate, are discussed, infra. Mercy has proposed a number of findings of fact in its proposed order concerning the credibility of Dr. Meeter's and Dr. Fox's testimony. Some of those proposed findings of fact have been considered in determining the weight given to their testimony. Both Dr. Meeter and Dr. Fox were, however, knowledgeable and credible. In addition to the opinion of its statistical expert, Mercy presented the testimony of three witnesses who were accepted as experts in health care finance: Messrs. Lawrence R. Murray, Jerry A. Mashburn and Anthony Krayer. All three are certified public accountants. All testified that it was his opinion that the HCCB's grouping methodology was arbitrary. The bases for their opinions are discussed, infra. Selection of "Seed" Hospitals. In order to use a clustering algorithm, a starting point is needed; the first object (hospital) to be placed in each group must be selected. The first objects selected are called "seed" objects. Mercy has attached the HCCB's method of selecting the nine "seed" hospitals in initially performing the McQueen's K-means clustering algorithm. Mercy has proposed the following findings of fact with regard to this point: While none of the parties challenged the use of McQueen's and the CLAN program, no support was offered during the hearing for the method by which the HCCB had selected the nine seed hospitals as initial clustering points. The HCCB's own statistician criticized the HCCB's selection method. The Rankis-Zimmerman report indicates that the final groupings based upon the HCCB's seed hospitals were vastly different than groupings based upon the utilization of seed hospitals selected on a statistical basis. Both the HCCB's and Mercy's statisticians proposed statistically sound methods for selecting seed hospitals, which had not been employed by the HCCB in the Grouping Methodology. [Citations omitted] These proposed findings of fact are not relevant to this proceeding. The burden is on Mercy to show that the selection of "seed" hospitals was arbitrary and capricious; the HCCB is not required to show "support" for its method of selecting the seed hospitals. Additionally, whether there are other methods of selecting seed hospitals is not the test. The HCCB's interpretation of the statute need not be the sole interpretation or even the most desirable one; it only needs to be within the range of possible interpretations. Durrani, supra. Therefore, even if the Rankis-Zimmerman report does indicate that the final groupings of hospitals of the HCCB were vastly different than groupings based upon other methods of selecting seed hospitals, it does not automatically follow that the HCCB's method of selecting seed hospitals was not "within the range of possible interpretations. The weight of the evidence does not prove that the HCCB's method of selecting seed hospitals was arbitrary and capricious. Selection of the Variables. In delegating legislative authority to the HCCB to establish a grouping methodology, the Legislature provided that the following relevant characteristics are to be taken into account: A measure of the nature and range of services provided; Number of medical specialties represented on the hospital staff; Percentage of Medicare inpatient days; Average daily census; Geographic differences; and Case mix, "when available." In response to the Legislature's mandate, the HCCB has adopted seven variables or characteristics. The variables selected by the HCCB include five hospital- specific (endogenous) variables and two geographic (exogenous variables). The variables are as follows: Endogenous Variables: Average occupied beds. Available services. Physician mix. Number of residents. Percent Medicare days. Exogenous Variables: Florida price level index. Personal income. The following findings of fact are made with regard to each of the specific characteristics required to be taken into account by the Legislature and the variables adopted by the HCCB: 1. A measure of the nature and range of services provided. The HCCB has provided in the Manual that "available services" or a service index will be considered. The specific services considered are listed on Table B, Chapter V, of the Manual. Table B also weights or provides a score for each of the various services listed. Each hospital gets the specified score if it has a particular service available. The available services listed are based upon a survey of hospital administrators and chief financial officers in New York, New York, made in the 1970's. Problems with the list of available services have been pointed out to the HCCB and its staff. The primary problem is that the volume of services provided is not taken into account. The problems with the service index, however, relate to the fact that the service index is a proxy for case mix. To date, there is no alternative available which would be a better proxy for case mix. The Legislature contemplated this fact by providing that a measure of the services provided by a hospital will be considered and that case mix will be taken into account "when available." Therefore, while there are "problems" with the service index, consideration of available services is mandated by the Legislature and there are no acceptable alternatives available use for by the HCCB. 2. Number of medical specialties represented on the hospital staff. 52. The HCCB has provided that a physician specialties mix be considered in grouping hospitals. This physician specialties mix is based upon a list of twenty- six specialties for which a hospital gets a single credit for each specialty available regardless of the number of physician specialists available in each specialty or the volume of patients admitted by a physician. 52. Like the service index, the physician specialties mix is a proxy for ease mix and has problems associated with its use. Also like the service index, consideration of this factor is mandated and there are no acceptable alternatives available for use by the HCCB. 3. Percentage of Medicare inpatient days. 53. The HCCB has provided that "percentage Medicare days be considered in grouping hospitals. Consideration of this variable has not been shown to be arbitrary and capricious. 4. Average daily census. 53. The HCCB has provided that "average occupied beds" is to be considered in grouping hospitals. It does not appear that this variable's use was proper, as discussed, infra. 5. Geographic differences. The HCCB has provided that geographic differences be considered in grouping hospitals by providing for the inclusion of the Florida price level index, by county, and median income, by county, as variables to be considered. The only thing that the evidence established with regard to these variables was that they are not "very good" predictors, that "if" they are intended as a measure of input prices they are "poor substitutes," and that there may be "better" measures of the cost of doing business. The evidence does not, however, show that the use of these variables is arbitrary and capricious. Mercy has proposed a number of findings of fact concerning geographic influences in part II, H of its proposed order. The proposed findings of fact begin on page 29 and end on page 33. Most of these proposed findings of fact are not made in this Final Order because they are not deemed relevant or material and are unnecessary to the resolution of this proceeding. The proposed findings of fact contained in part II, H of Mercy's proposed order purportedly show that the HCCB has inadequately accounted for geographic influences. The evidence does establish that the financial characteristics of Florida hospitals and GRAA are affected by the geographic location of a hospital. This is especially true in Florida because of the impact on parts of the State from tourism, language barriers, the number of elderly residents, the available labor markets, and competition. It is also true that the combined weights of the two geographic variables the HCCB has selected for consideration in the grouping methodology--the Florida price level index and median income--is only one-seventh of the combined weights of all the HCCB's variables. It is also true that the grouping methodology results in hospitals from different areas of the State being grouped together, i.e., Mercy's hospital group includes twenty- three hospitals, four of which are located in Dade County and three of which are located in Escambia County. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the HCCB has been arbitrary and capricious in designating only two variables to take into account geographic differences between hospitals. The evidence also does not support a conclusion that it was not proper for the HCCB to limit the weight of the geographic variables to one-seventh of the total weight of the variables. Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the inclusion of hospitals from different areas of the State in the same group is not a proper result just because geographic influences are important. The fact that a large percentage of Dade County and south Florida hospitals do not qualify for automatic approval of their budgets under Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), because they are in the upper 20th and the upper 50th to 79th percentiles does not necessarily prove that geographic influences have not been adequately accounted for either, as suggested be Mercy on page 30 of its proposed order. The evidence simply does not support such a conclusion. Nor does it necessarily follow that because Dade County hospitals are "efficient" in the minds of some of Mercy's witnesses and yet are unable to achieve automatic approval of their budgets that the grouping methodology does not adequately account for geographic influences, as suggested by Mercy on pages 30 and 31 of its proposed order. First, the Legislature has provided that factors other than geographic differences are to be considered, which the HCCB has provided for. It may therefore be that some Dade County hospitals do not achieve automatic approval of their budgets because of the other variables. The fact that not all Dade County hospitals fail to achieve automatic approval of their budgets supports such a conclusion. Also, even though a hospital's budget is not automatically approved it does not necessarily mean that it is considered inefficient. If that were the case, its budget would probably be subject automatically to amendment or disapproval. That is not the case. If a hospital's budget is not automatically approved its budget is subject to further review under Section 395.509(5), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). It may still be determined that the hospital is "efficient" based upon this review. The Legislature, in enacting Part II of Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, did indicate that it intended to promote competition and efficiency among hospitals in order to contain hospital costs. Section 395.5025, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The grouping methodology and, in particular, the comparison of hospitals' GRAA under Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), does not alone achieve that intent. Therefore the opinion of several of Mercy's witnesses that Dade County hospitals and in particular, Mercy, are efficient does not support a conclusion that the methodology is arbitrary and capricious or that geographic influences are not adequately considered. On pages 31 and 32 of its proposed order, Mercy suggests that Dade County hospitals only compete with other Dade County hospitals and therefore grouping hospitals from all sections of the State is illogical. In support of this suggestion, Mercy proposes findings of fact to the effect that the HCCB has recognized that consumers are interested in comparing hospital charges on a regional basis and has provided information about hospital cost on a county-by- county basis in the past. Mercy's proposed findings of fact are not accepted for essentially the same reasons that its proposed findings of fact with regard to the efficiency of hospitals were rejected. These proposed findings of fact do not support a finding that the HCCB's grouping methodology is arbitrary and capricious or that geographic differences have not been adequately taken into account. Mercy's has also proposed findings of fact with regard to geographic differences to the effect that after the Legislature specifically required that "geographic differences" be considered in an amendment to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1981), in 1982, the HCCB has not added any additional geographic factors to be considered. Although no additional geographic variables have been added, geographic variables have been reviewed and have been changed since 1982. More importantly, these proposed findings of fact do not prove that the existing variables are not adequate. 6. Case Mix. 66. Case mix is to be taken into account "when available." The evidence does not establish that case mix is available at this time. 7. Other variables. The HCCB is not limited to a consideration of the factors which the Legislature specifically provided are to be considered. Sections 395.507(2) and 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The only other variable the HCCB has provided for consideration is "number of residents." No evidence of significance concerning this variable was presented at the hearing. There was testimony at the hearing that there are other variables which would be appropriate for consideration in grouping hospitals. The evidence does not, however, establish that failure to consider other variables means that the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB is arbitrary and capricious. Dr. Zimmerman opined that he had determined that the variables selected by the HCCB were not appropriate. Dr. Zimmerman based his opinion upon the fact that he had conducted a "multiple regression analysis." According to Dr. Zimmerman, a "multiple regression analysis is a statistical procedure used to evaluate the relationship of a given set of independent, predictor variables (the HCCB's seven variables) to a single dependent variable (GRAA)." Based upon his application of multiple regression analysis, Dr. Zimmerman concluded that three of the variables used in the HCCB's grouping methodology are not statistically significant predictors of GRAA: available services, average occupied beds and median income. Two of these variables (available services and average occupied beds) are required by Sections 395.507(2) and 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), to be taken into account in the grouping methodology. These Sections also require that geographic factors, which median income is, be taken into account. This does not, however, mean that median income must be included as a variable by the HCCB. Dr. Meeter testified that the statistical significance of the HCCB's variables can be determined by the use of "log transformation." Based upon Dr. Meeter's use of log transformation, median income and available services are statistically significant variables; average occupied beds is not statistically significant. Although the HCCB was required to include "average daily census" as a factor in grouping hospitals, the HCCB was not required to use "average occupied beds." Based upon Dr. Zimmerman's and Dr. Meeter's testimony, the use of average occupied beds as a variable was not proper. Whether the use of available services and median income as variables was proper depends upon whether log transformation is a proper method of determining the statistical significance of variables. Although the evidence on this question was in conflict, it appears that the use of log transformation was proper. The inclusion of available services and median income is therefore not arbitrary and capricious. A second problem with the variables used by the HCCB suggested by Dr. Zimmerman involves the correlation between the seven predictor variables or "multicollinearity." The existence of multicollinearity can invalidate a clustering program. Dr. Zimmerman determined that the correlation between the physician mix, available services and average occupied beds variables and between the Florida price level index and median income variables is large enough that there is a "potential" problem. Dr. Zimmerman's determination that there is a "potential" problem was made through two techniques. He first used "paired correlation." Based upon paired correlation, Dr. Zimmerman used a "rule of thumb" that a paired correlation of 0.7 or higher should be looked at closer. Finding a paired correlation between physician mix, available services and average occupied beds of .74 and between the Florida price level index and median income of .71, Dr. Zimmerman then calculated "R squared" to determine if a potential problem did in fact exist. Dr. Zimmerman indicated that the calculation of R squared is the most highly recommended method of determining if multicollinearity is a problem but agreed there are other methods of making such a determination. Dr. Meeter indicated that Dr. Zimmerman's rule of thumb that based upon paired correlations of 0.7 or higher indicates the problem should be looked at more closely is too strict. Other than Dr. Zimmerman's "experience" (which according to Dr. Zimmerman, consisted of a class he took), Dr. Zimmerman did not cite any authority which supported his rule of thumb. The only other source Dr. Zimmerman referred to--the "SPSS" manual--only indicates that the .82-1.0 range indicates that extreme collinearity exists. Another problem raised by Dr. Meeter with Dr. Zimmerman's conclusions as to multicollinearity, involves the use of "variance inflation factors" (hereinafter referred to as VIF is another technique used by statisticians to determine if multicollinearity is a problem. Dr. Zimmerman did not look at VIF. VIF can be determined by transforming R squared: VIF 1/1- R2. A VIF in excess of 5 or 10 is an indication that multicollinearity exists. One source quoted by Dr. Meeter even indicates that a much higher VIF is necessary to conclude that multicollinerity exists. Transforming Dr. Zimmerman's R squared calculations indicates that VIF is in excess of 5 in only one instance. As discussed more fully, infra, Dr. Zimmerman used a number of alternative methods of grouping hospitals which he designated as "Schemes." Based upon Dr. Zimmerman's "Scheme 3," Dr. Zimmerman found an R squared value of .819. The VIF for an R squared value of .819 is in excess of 5. Scheme 3, however, is not an application of the HCCB's grouping methodology; it is a grouping methodology in which the variables are assigned different weights. As indicated by Dr. Meeter, the weights used in grouping can effect the correlation of the variables. Therefore, the fact that Scheme 3 indicates a possible multicollinearity problem does not prove that multicollinearity is in fact a problem with the HCCB's grouping methodology. Based upon the foregoing it is found that multicollinearity does not exist sufficiently to conclude that the variables used by the HCCB are arbitrary and capricious. Dr. Zimmerman only testified that there was a "potential" problem. Additionally, although multicollinearity may invalidate a clustering program, the evidence does not prove that the HCCB's clustering program is in fact invalid because of any existing "potential" problem. In light of the foregoing findings of fact, it is clear that the HCCB's variables are appropriate with the exception of average occupied beds. The fact that this one variable is not statistically significant, however, does not by itself support a finding that the grouping methodology is inappropriate. The Lack of Testing of the Grouping Methodology. A third point raised by Mercy is entitled "Lack of Testing" in its proposed order and includes several proposed findings of fact on pages 17 and 18 of Mercy's proposed order. Mercy has essentially proposed findings of fact that: (1) it had been recommended to the HCCB when it originally adopted its grouping methodology in 1980 that a statistician be hired to test the grouping methodology; (2) that the failure to do so had been criticized in the past; that it had been recommended that the HCCB obtain assistance of individuals knowledgeable in Florida hospital characteristics to evaluate the grouping process but had failed to do so; (4) that the HCCB had not, until just prior to the hearing of this case, hired a statistician; (5) that the HCCB has not used multiple regression analysis or within-cluster co- variance weighting; and, (6) that the State of Washington's State Hospital Commission has employed a statistician to test its methodology and has effectively been advised by individuals knowledgeable with Washington's hospital characteristics. These proposed findings of fact do not establish that the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB is arbitrary and capricious even if they were all correct findings of fact. All that these proposed findings of fact show is that the HCCB may not have gone about the adoption of its grouping methodology in the most appropriate manner. Any such shortcomings, based upon 20/20 hindsight, in the manner in which the methodology was adopted do not prove that the grouping methodology itself is not appropriate. Additionally, the evidence does not support all of these proposed findings. In particular, as was discussed, supra, the HCCB did in fact look to individuals knowledgeable in Florida hospital characteristics to evaluate its grouping methodology. The Weight of the Variables. The most significant and troublesome challenge made by Mercy to the HCCB's grouping methodology involves the weights assigned to the variables considered in grouping hospitals. The weights assigned by the HCCB to the seven HCCB variables are: Variable Weight Endogenous: Average occupied beds. 1.0 Available services. 2.0 Physician mix. 0.5 Number of residents. 0.5 Percent Medicare days. 2.0 Exogenous: Florida price level index. 0.5 Personal income. 0.5 The determination of whether the weights selected by the HCCB are arbitrary and capricious depends largely upon the evidence presented at the hearing by those witnesses knowledgeable in the field of statistics. Three witnesses were qualified as experts in statistically related fields. All three were well qualified in their fields and were credible and persuasive. According to Dr. Zimmerman, "the weights used currently by the HCCB are clearly inappropriate." In Mercy exhibit 17, Dr. Zimmerman reaches the following conclusion with regard to the HCCB's variable weights: These weights clearly do not reflect the relationship of the various variables to GRAA and thus appear as arbitrary and inappropriate for use in clustering hospitals on the basis of cost-related variables. Dr. Zimmerman's opinion is based upon the use of "multiple regression analysis," which, according to Mercy exhibit 17, "assesses the relationship of each of the predictor variables to the dependent measure (GRAA)." The evidence, however, does not support a finding of fact that multiple regression analysis is the only statistically valid method of establishing weights to be used in clustering analysis. In fact, there are a number of statistically valid methods of establishing variable weights. One of those acceptable methods is the "subjective" method which was used by the HCCB. Doctors Meeter and Fox substantiated this finding of fact. The use of the subjective method involves the participation of individuals knowledgable in the Florida hospital industry in reviewing and commenting on the weights used. The evidence clearly supports a finding that individuals with such knowledge participated in the process of developing the HCCB's grouping methodology including the selection of variable weights. Even one of Mercy's witnesses provided testimony which supports this conclusion: Mr. Kenneth G. McGee testified that "[i] t was just a trial and error process of changing weights until we ended up with something that people considered more reasonable than what had been produced in the past." Mercy has questioned Dr. Meeter's testimony with regard to the use of the subjective method of weighting variables based upon a number of proposed findings of fact. First, Mercy has proposed findings of fact to the effect that Dr. Meeter indicated that the subjective method is "bad" if not carefully applied. What Dr. Meeter actually said was that any method should be applied carefully. Secondly, Mercy has proposed a finding of fact that in a book relied upon by Dr. Meeter in rendering his opinion about the subjective method--John Hardigan's 1975 book, Clustering Algorithms--the author describes the subjective method as an "unsatisfactory" one. What Dr. Meeter's testimony proves is that Hardigan's comment was a tongue- in-cheek comment that there are several appropriate methods of weighting variables all of which are unsatisfactory, including regression analysis (used by Dr. Zimmerman) and the subjective method (use by the HCCB). Dr. Meeter also relied upon other statistical literature in rendering his opinion as to the use of the subjective method in determining variable weights. Finally, Mercy has suggested that Dr. Meeter did not undertake any independent "statistical" analysis which would support his opinions. Based upon the nature of Dr. Meeter's testimony, it does not appear that such a statistical analysis is a prerequisite to concluding that the use of the subjective method is an acceptable method of determining variable weights. Mercy has proposed a finding that the subjective method of weighting is inappropriate based upon Dr. Zimmerman's testimony. Dr. Zimmerman was asked the following questions and gave the following responses concerning the subjective method: Q Now, in your understanding of how the Board arrived at its weights, is it your opinion that that is totally inappropriate methodology for clustering? Yes or no or maybe? A I am looking to counsel for counsel here. MR. PARKER: Do you understand the questions? THE WITNESS: I do understand the question. And let me give you my full answer as I best understand it. The weights -- and I think what I have commented on at great length -- the weights used by the Hospital Cost Containment Board are clearly on statistical grounds inappropriate. There's no question about that. BY MR. COLLETTE: Now, on these clustering grounds, you testified as to your familiarity with clustering grounds, on clustering grounds, are they totally inappropriate? A If the question is -- I wouldn't say that. Hearing that there is no objection, I will continue. I would rule out the use of a purely subjective weighting scheme as a final solution for cluster analysis. I think it might be one that would be considered at a very early step, but never used, as kind of a preliminary idea. However, I would clearly rule out the use of a purely subjective weighting scheme as something to be proud of and actually put into application. So, if that means yes to your question, I guess yes in that specific way. Dr. Zimmerman's responses are not totally clear with regard to whether the subjective method is, in his opinion, an acceptable method of determining variable weights. Nor would his response, if totally clear, overcome the weight of the evidence in support of a conclusion that the HCCB's method of determining variable weights is not arbitrary and capricious. Alternative Methods of Grouping Hospitals. Mercy has proposed a number of findings of fact under a section of its proposed order entitled "Alternative Variables and Weights Indicated by Statistical Analyses." Pages 22 to 29 of Mercy's proposed order. Some of the proposed findings included therein have been dealt with in other portions of this Final Order, including those findings of fact dealing with the use of multiple regression analysis and multicollinearity. In Dr. Zimmerman's report (Mercy exhibit 17) and during his testimony a number of alternative methods of grouping hospitals were tested and evaluated. Dr. Zimmerman concluded that a number of these alternative methods would be preferable to the methodology adopted by the HCCB. Dr. Zimmerman tested twelve different methods (referred to as "Schemes" by Dr. Zimmerman): the HCCB's, the State of Washington's and ten other methods which used some or all of the seven variables designated by the HCCB. Scheme 3 used all seven variables selected by the HCCB but with different weights. Dr. Zimmerman rejected this scheme because of multicollinearity. In Scheme 4, Dr. Zimmerman used only the four variables which he found to be statistically significant: physician specialties mix, number of residents, percent Medicare days and the Florida price level index. Dr. Zimmerman recognized that this Scheme was not acceptable because of the statutory mandate as to the types of factors which must be taken into account. In order to recognize the requirement of Sections 395.507(2) and 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), that certain variables be taken into account and to alleviate the purported multicollinearity problem, Dr. Zimmerman combined the variables he considered highly correlated into two "scales." "Scale 1" combined physician specialties mix, available services and average occupied beds and "Scale 2" combined the Florida price level index and median income. The weights assigned to these scale were based upon the weights Dr. Zimmerman felt were more appropriate as discussed, supra. Dr. Zimmerman then used multiple regression analysis and a variety of combinations of variables and Scales in Schemes 6-12. Of these Schemes, Dr. Zimmerman testified that Schemes 6 and 10 were preferable, if Scheme 4 could not be used. Scheme 6 involved the use of all of the variables: percent Medicare days, number of residents and Scales 1 and 2. Scheme 10 involved the use of all of the variables except median income: percent Medicare days, number of residents, the Florida price level index and Scale 1. Dr. Zimmerman compared the results of using the HCCB's grouping methodology to the results from using Schemes 3,4,6 and 10. The results showed that more Dade County hospitals had GRAA's, in comparison to the hospitals in the resulting groups under Schemes 3,4,6 and 10, which would result in automatic approval of their budgets than under the HCCB's methodology. Mercy's position within its group also improved as a result of using Schemes 3,4,6 and 10. These proposed findings of and Mercy's proposed findings of fact concerning alternatives considered by Dr. Meeter do not prove that the HCCB's grouping methodology is arbitrary and capricious. As found, supra, six of the seven variables selected by the HCCB are reasonable. The weights assigned to those variables have also been found to be reasonable and Mercy's suggested findings of fact with regard to multicollinearity have been rejected. Mercy has failed to prove that the HCCB's grouping methodology is arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, any alternative methods or Schemes and the results of using such methods cannot and do not overcome such findings. Conclusions. Based upon the foregoing, it is clear that the bases for the opinions that the HCCB's grouping methodology is inappropriate are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Dr. Zimmerman's opinion, which was based upon a number of conclusions, was only supported by the fact that one of the variables selected by the HCCB is not proper. The evidence, however, does not support a finding that this fact alone means that the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB is inappropriate. The facts do not support a conclusion that the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB is arbitrary and capricious.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner Brookwood Medical Center of Lake City, Inc., d/b/a Lake City Medical Center (hereinafter referred to as LCMC) is a 75-bed acute care hospital, which presently has 65 medical/surgical beds and 10 alcohol treatment beds. Plans are under way to convert 10 of the medical/surgical beds to a psychiatric unit with 10 beds. LCMC primarily serves Columbia County, a primarily rural community with a population of 34,625, and derives 74 percent of its patients therefrom. The remaining 261 of its admissions come from the surrounding counties of Hamilton, Lafayette and Suwannee. Approximately 60 percent of its patients are sixty years of age or older. The source of reimbursement for the year 1980 was 40 percent Medicare, 8 percent Medicaid, 8 percent indigent or bad debt, and the remaining portion from other third-party payors. The current occupancy rate at LCMC is approximately 502 or 37.5 patients per day. Seasonal trends cause this figure to vary between 32 and 37.5. The daily census is expected to increase over the next year due to the planned addition of four new programs. These include the ten-bed psychiatric unit for which a Certificate of Need application is pending, an industrial medical and occupational health program which would provide on-site care to employees and their family members, the recruitment of an internist/cardiologist and the recruitment of an ophthalmologist. It is projected that the proposed new psychiatric unit will add eight patients to LCMC's daily census, the industrial health program will add 2.5 patients per day as well as outpatients, and that the internist/cardiologist will generate five patients per day. Psychiatric beds are less likely to generate intensive care patients than medical/surgical beds. It is expected that LCMC's program of expansion will change the mix of the primary and secondary service areas and will increase the average daily census to 42.5 by the end of 1981. Petitioner presently has a nursing staff of 48 and a medical staff of Of its medical staff, 13 are listed as active, 4 as courtesy, 4 as consulting and one with temporary privileges. LCMC has one operating room, no emergency room, and no intensive care/cardiac care unit (also referred to as IC/CCU). On an average basis, it is estimated that from ten to twelve surgical procedures per week are performed at LCMC. In 1980, 468 surgical procedures were performed. For the first quarter of 1981, the busiest time of the year, 156 surgical procedures were performed. Petitioner does have a step-down unit or a progressive care unit (also referred to as PCU) with four beds. The current utilization of the PCU is 2.7 patients per day, with a 50 percent medical component and a 50 percent surgical component. If petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need were granted, LCMC's PCU would be converted to an IC/CCU with invasive monitoring capabilities and patients who currently receive treatment in the PCU would be treated in the new IC/CCU. The current patient charge for the PCU is $111.00 per day. LCMC proposes an IC/CCU charge of $250.00 per day. Petitioner estimates that 8 percent of its patients would need and use an IC/CCU, and that, for the first year of operation, the IC/CCU would have a daily census of 3.5 patients. For the second year of operation, a daily patient census of 4.5 is projected. The projected daily utilization of over 50 percent is not consistent with actual utilization achieved in the IC/CCUs of other hospitals in the area. The prime concept of an IC/CCU is to provide more intensive nursing care and monitoring capabilities for unstable medical and surgical patients. The majority of admissions to an IC/CCU come from the emergency room and the second largest source is from the operating room after surgery. While some physicians feel that no physician or acute care facility should be without an IC/CCU, that all post-operative patients should be monitored in an ICU and that it is not good practice to transport an unstable patient under any circumstances, others disagree. These physicians, while agreeing that all hospitals need some form of life support capability, feel that for general routine surgery, only a very small percentage of patients are in need of an intensive care unit. It is possible to reduce the need for an intensive care unit by screening patients prior to surgery. A recovery room and/or a progressive care unit can provide the routine noninvasive monitoring and more intensive nursing care and observation needed by many medical and surgical patients. The use of a recovery room for critical care patients does pose serious problems due to the exposure to additional commotion and the potential mixing of well surgical patients with septic unstable patients. It is better medical practice to have separate personnel for infectious and noninfectious patients. The transfer of an unstable patient to another facility can pose serious risk to the patient. The intervenor Lake Shore Hospital (also referred to as LSH) is located approximately 1.5 miles from the petitioner. Lake Shore Hospital is a full- service, acute care, public hospital with 128 beds, an emergency room and a 9- bed IC/CCU. LSH has had an IC/CCU since 1970 or 1971. More than 50 percent of its intensive care patients come from its emergency room. Approximately 1600 surgical operations per year are performed at LSH. The IC/CCU at LSH provides basic noninvasive monitoring equipment connected to the patient's bedside and the nurses' stations. It does not presently have Swans-Ganz monitoring equipment, an invasive device which measures a patient's hemodynamics. The wiring and other equipment for two such monitoring capabilities are in place and, with the addition of a module and transducer for each unit, two units can be installed for a cost of approximately $4,400.00. At the present time, no one in Lake City has the extensive training required to utilize the Swans-Ganz monitoring equipment. LSH is in the recruitment process and plans to purchase and install this equipment when a cardiologist or other trained specialist is recruited. The IC/CCU at LSH experiences an occupancy rate of 3.5 patients per day, or 35 percent of its capacity. It has only achieved full capacity on two occasions in the ten years of its existence. Lake Shore Hospital presently charges $275.00 per day for the use of its IC/CCU. If it were to lose one patient per day, LSH would lose approximately $100,000.00 per year in revenue. Such a loss could result in either increased taxes or increased patient charges. In spite of the fact that several major admittors to LCMC and LSH have their offices at LCMC, It was their testimony that were a Certificate of Need granted to LCMC for an IC/CCU, they would continue to admit and refer patients to both facilities. Lake Shore Hospital has a medical staff of 22 or 23 specialists and nonspecialists. Of this number, all but one are also on the staff of Lake City Medical Center. The PCU at LCMC and the IC/CCU at LSH are presently comparable. While the nursing staff at Lake Shore's IC/CCU is better trained, at least one physician who practices at both hospitals felt that the same level of care could presently be obtained at LCMC's PCU as at LSH's IC/CCU. This is due to the fact that LSH does not now have the invasive monitoring capabilities felt to be essential to an IC/CCU. The traditional difference between a PCU and an IC/CCU is the degree of training of the nursing staff and the sophistication of the equipment. Underutilization of an IC/CCU can have an adverse effect upon the quality of care provided. One of the most important aspects of an intensive care unit is superior trained personnel. A reduction in patient use obviously reduces the personnel's exposure to complications and skills become dull. Thus, a reduction in patients reduces the quality of care. There is presently a shortage of nurses in the Lake City area. Lake Shore Hospital presently has 8 nursing vacancies and has been actively recruiting to fill those vacancies. In order to operate its proposed IC/CCU, LCMC would have to employ two full-time equivalent nurses with training in that area. The petitioner projects the cost of its requested IC/CCU to be $240,000.00. In 1979, LCMC ran a deficit of $1 million, the sixth largest loss in the State. In 1980, the deficit was $390,000.00. LCMC is presently experiencing a positive cash flow for 1981. It appears that LCMC anticipates the proposed IC/CCU to be a profit-making venture and projects that, if its presumptions are true with respect to patient use, the project will be financially feasible. At the time of the hearing, negotiations were under way for the sale of petitioner to another entity. The reviewing Health Systems Agency, the North Central Florida Health Planning Council, Inc. (NCFHPC), unanimously denied the petitioner's request for an IC/CCU at every level of the review process. The 1981-1985 Health Systems Plan for the NCFHPC contains certain criteria and standards for intensive and coronary care units which should he met within five years of operation. Two of the criteria are that an IC/CCU should have an average annual occupancy rate of 80 percent and that an IC/CCU should be available within one hour's (one-way) travel time of 95 percent of the region's residents. As noted above, LSH is approximately 1.5 miles away from LCMC. Lake City is 45 miles from Gainesville and 65 miles from Jacksonville with interstate highways connecting these cities. With an optimal utilization rate of 80 percent, it is projected that 8.5 IC/CCU beds are needed in the planning area in 1980, and, by 1985, there will be a need for 9 beds. There are presently 15 IC/CCU beds in the Level 2 planning area, which includes Lafayette, Suwannee, Hamilton and Columbia Counties. Of the licensed 212 acute care medical/surgical hospitals in Florida, 22 or 10 percent do not have intensive or coronary care units. The approximate bed size of most of these facilities is 50.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need to construct and operate an intensive care/coronary care unit at Lake City Medical Center be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 7th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: John H. French, Jr. Messer, Rhodes and Vickers Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donna H. Stinson General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jon Moyle and Thomas Sheehan, III Moyle, Jones and Flannagan, P.A. 707 North Flagler Drive Post Office Box 3888 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Honorable Alvin J. Taylor Secretary, Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner was overpaid for those Medicaid claims which, according to the post-hearing submissions of the parties, remain in dispute.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Jay's Medical Center Jay's Medical Center (hereinafter referred to as "JMC") is a medical clinic located in a low income area in Miami. It is staffed by three physicians, including Shelley Wolland, D.O., the clinic's Medical Director, 6/ and several support staff. In general, the community JMC serves is poorly educated and has a relatively high incidence of medical problems. Approximately 7,000 members of the community receive medical services at JMC, with anywhere from 40 to 80 patients receiving services in a single day. Many of the clinic's patients are Medicaid recipients. The Provider Agreement JMC is now, and has been since May of 1990, when it entered into a Non- Institutional Professional and Technical Medicaid Provider Agreement with the Department, authorized to provide physician services, EPSDT (Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment) services, and family planning services to its Medicaid patients eligible to receive such services. The provider agreement between JMC and the Department provided as follows: The provider agrees that services will be provided to recipients of the Florida Medicaid Program without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, or handicap. The provider agrees to keep for 5 years complete and accurate medical and fiscal records that fully justify and disclose the extent of the services rendered and billing made under the Medicaid program and agrees to furnish the State Agency and Medicaid Fraud Control unit upon request such information regarding any payments claimed for providing these services. Access to the pertinent patient records and facilities by authorized Medicaid program representatives will be permitted upon reasonable request. All records relating to Medicaid recipients are to be held confidential as provided under 42 CFR 431.305 and 306. The provider agrees that services or goods billed to the Medicaid program must be medically necessary, Medicaid compensable and of quality comparable to those furnished by the provider's peers, and the services or goods must have been actually provided to eligible Medicaid recipients by the provider prior to submitting a claim. The provider agrees to submit Medicaid claims in accordance with program policies and that payment by the program for services rendered will be based on the payment methodology in the applicable Florida Administrative Rule. The provider in executing this agreement acknowledges that he understands that payment of Florida Medicaid claims is made from Federal and State funds and that any falsification, or concealment of a material fact, may be prosecuted under Federal and State laws. The providers of Independent Laboratory, Portable X-Ray Services, Home Health Services, Hospice and Rural Health Clinic Services agree to furnish the Office of Licensure and Certifi- cation a completed copy of Form HCFA-1513 (Ownership and Control Interest Disclosure Statement) in accordance with 42 CFR 455.104. The providers of Prescribed Drug Services agree to bill the Medicaid program no more than usual and customary charges and on request, to provide access to usual and customary pricing information. The Department agrees to notify the provider of any major changes in Federal or State rules and regulations relating to Medicaid. Payment made by the State Agency shall constitute full payment for services rendered to recipients under the Medicaid program. This includes situations when no payment is made to physicians when Medicare coinsurance claims are adjudicated due to Medicaid's payment methodology. The only exception is in specific programs when Medicaid coinsurance is required from the recipient. The provider and the Department agree to abide by the Florida Administrative Code, Florida Statutes, policies, procedures, manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program and Federal laws and regulations. The agreement may be terminated upon thirty days written notice by either party. The Department may terminate this agreement in accordance with Chapter 120, F.S. This agreement becomes effective the date the signature of the authorized agent of the Office of Medicaid is affixed. The provider eligibility will be established at the latter of the date of licensure of the provider, if applicable, or ninety (90) days prior to receipt of the application. The provider shall be responsible for assuring that the signature on the claim form is appropriate for authorization. Persons authorized to submit Medicaid claims on behalf of the provider shall be limited to the provider, the provider's employees or authorized agent. Handbook Provisions Among the "manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program" referenced in paragraph 8. of the provider agreement was the Medicaid Physician Provider Handbook (hereinafter referred to as the "MPP Handbook"). Chapter 10 of the MPP Handbook addressed the subject of "provider participation." Section 10.9 of this chapter provided as follows: RECORD KEEPING You must retain physician records on services provided to each Medicaid recipient. You must also keep financial records. Keep the records for five (5) years from the date of service. Examples of the types of Medicaid records that must be retained are: Medicaid claim forms and any documents that are attached, treatment plans, prior authorization information, any third party claim information, x-rays, fiscal records, and copies of sterilization and hysterectomy consents. Medical records must contain the extent of services provided. The following is a list of minimum requirements: history, physical examination, chief complaint on each visit, diagnostic tests and results, diagnosis, a dated, signed physician order for each service rendered, treatment plan, including prescriptions for medications, supplies, scheduling frequency for follow-up or other services, signature of physician on each visit, date of service, anesthesia records, surgery records, copies of hospital and/or emergency records that fully disclose services, and referrals to other services. If time is a part of the procedure code prescription being billed, then duration of visit shown by begin time and end time must be included in the record. Authorized state and federal staff or their authorized representatives may audit your Medicaid records. You may convert your paper records to microfilm or microfiche. However, your microfilm or microfiche must be legible when printed and viewed. Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook addressed the subject of "covered services and limitations." Section 11.1 of this chapter provided as follows: INTRODUCTION The physician services program pays for services performed by a licensed physician or osteopath within the scope of the practice of medicine or osteopathy as defined by state law. The services of this program must be performed for medical necessity for diagnosis and treatment of an illness on an eligible Medicaid recipient. Delivery of the services in this manual must be done by or under the personal supervision of a physician or osteopath at any place of service. Personal supervision is defined as the physician being in the building when the service was rendered. The physician must sign and date the medical record either on the date of service or within 24 hours. Each service type listed has special policy requirements that apply specifically to it. These must be adhered to for payment. HCPCS CODES and ICD-9-CM CODES Procedure codes listed in Chapter 12 are HCPCS (Health Care Financing Administration Common Procedure Coding System) codes. These are based on the Physician's Current Procedural Terminology, Fourth Edition. Determine which procedure describes the service rendered and enter that code and description on your claim form. HCPCS codes described as "unlisted" are used when there is no procedure among those listed that describes the service rendered. Physician's Current Procedural Terminology, Fourth Edition, Copyright 1977, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 by the American Medical Association (CPT-4) is a listing of descriptive terms and numeric identifying codes and modifiers for reporting medical services and procedures performed by physicians. The Health Care Financing Administration Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) includes CPT-4 descriptive terms and numeric identifying codes and modifiers for reporting medical services and procedures and other materials contained in CPT-4 which are copyrighted by the American Medical Association. The Diagnosis Codes to be used are found in the International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition, Clinical Modifications (ICD-9-CM). A diagnosis code is required on all physician claims. Use the most specific code available. Fourth and fifth digits are required when available. There are six levels of service associated with the visit procedure codes. They require varying skills, effort, responsibility, and medical knowledge to complete the examination, evaluation, diagnosis, treatment and conference with the recipient about his illness or promotion of optimal health. These levels are: . Minimal is a level of service supervised by a physician. . Brief is a level of service pertaining to the evaluation and treatment of a condition requiring only an abbreviated history and exam. . Limited is a level of service used to evaluate a circumscribed acute illness or to periodically reevaluate a problem including a history and examination, review of effectiveness of past medical management, the ordering and evaluation of appropriate diagnostic tests, the adjustments of therapeutic management as indicated and discus- sion of findings. . Intermediate level of service pertains to the evaluation of a new or existing condition compli- cated with a new diagnostic or management problem, not necessarily related to the primary diagnosis, that necessitates the obtaining of pertinent history and physical or mental status findings, diagnostic tests and procedures, and ordering appropriate therapeutic management; or a formal patient, family or a hospital staff conference regarding the patient's medical management and progress. . Extended level of service requires an unusual amount of effort or judgment including a detailed history, review of medical records, examination, and a formal conference with the patient, family, or staff; or a comparable medical diagnostic and/or therapeutic service. . Comprehensive level of service provides for an in-depth evaluation of a patient with a new or existing problem requiring the development or complete reevaluation of medical data. This service includes the recording of a chief complaint, present illness, family history, past medical history, personal review, system review, complete physical examination, and ordering appropriate tests and procedures. 7/ Section 11.2 of Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook provided in part, that "[t]reatment of an illness found by a physician during an EPSDT screening that requires considerable office time (30 minutes or more) to treat, may also be billed as an office visit on the appropriate claim form." Another of the "manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program" referenced in paragraph 8. of the provider agreement between JMC and the Department was the Medicaid EPSDT Provider Handbook (hereinafter referred to as the "EPSDT Handbook"). Chapter 10 of the EPSDT Handbook addressed the subject of "provider participation." Section 10.8 of this chapter provided as follows: RECORD KEEPING You must retain EPSDT records on services provided to each Medicaid recipient. You must also keep financial records. Keep the records for five (5) years from the date of service. Examples of the types of Medicaid records that must be retained are: Medicaid claim forms and any documents that are attached, Treatment plans, Prior authorization information, Any third party claim information, X-rays, Fiscal records, and Copies of sterilization and hysterectomy consents. Authorized state and federal staff or their authorized representatives may audit your Medicaid records. You may convert your paper records to microfilm or microfiche. However, your microfilm or microfiche must be legible when printed and viewed. Chapter 11 of the EPSDT Handbook addressed the subject of "covered services and limitations." Sections 11.3 and 11.5 of this chapter provided that the components of an EPSDT preventive health screening examination were: a health and developmental history; unclothed physical assessment or examination; nutritional assessment; updating of routine immunizations, "as indicated by the recipient's age, health history, or population group;" laboratory tests, "as indicated by the recipient's age, health history, or population group;" development assessment, vision, hearing and dental screening; and health education. Section 11.7 of Chapter 11 provided, in part, as follows: Under federal regulations the state must provide for medically necessary treatment services diagnosed as a result of screening. Once the EPSDT recipient is screened and referred for treatment, any further diagnosis and/or treatment is then provided through the individual treatment service program. For example, if an EPSDT recipient is found to have an abnormal laboratory test result, such as tuber- culin (TB) skin test, any further referral, diagnosis and treatment is considered diagnostic treatment under physician services. Billing for a treatment visit at the time of a screening visit is only allowed when the illness is discovered during the screening examination. This treatment visit must be at least 30 minutes or more. Treatment visits completed in conjunction with a screening visit must be billed on the HFCA-1500 and the fact that the visit is screening related must be noted on the claim form. Treatment procedure codes should be related to screening results as noted on the EPSDT 221 claim form. An EPSDT screening should not routinely be completed on an obviously ill child, as the illness may distort the screening results. Sound professional judgment should be exercised in determining the appropriate- ness of screening an ill child. If screening results are questionable, treatment should be provided and the screening appointment rescheduled. If, however, an illness is detected during a screening examination, the screening may be completed and treatment provided on the same date, billing the treatment on the appropriate Medicaid claim form. Billing for treat- ment on the same day as the screening evaluation should be done only when a detected illness or condition requires significant time and procedures in addition to the time usually spent for a screening evaluation. The Audit Commencing in 1992, the Department conducted an audit of Medicaid claims submitted by JMC for services rendered from July 1, 1990, through December 31, 1991. During the course of the audit, the Department examined the files of 40 patients (Patients 1 through 19 and 21 through 41, hereinafter also referred to by their initials) who had received services during the audit period. Patient 1 (S.M.) January 16, 1991, Visit On January 16, 1991, S.M. presented at the clinic complaining of a sore throat and fever. The attending physician determined that S.M. had an upper respiratory tract infection, as well as vaginitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this as a "comprehensive" visit (procedure code 90020) and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one (procedure code 90060), as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. January 29, 1991, Visit S.M. next visited the clinic on January 29, 1991. JMC billed this visit as a "limited" one (procedure code 90050) and payment was made accordingly. Respondent does not dispute the appropriateness of such billing and payment. 8/ April 23, 1991, Visit On April 23, 1991, S.M. presented at the clinic complaining of blood in her urine. She further indicated that she had recently had a Pap smear test, the results of which reflected a possible precancerous condition. A pregnancy test revealed that S.M. was pregnant. She was also diagnosed as having an upper respiratory tract infection, for which she was treated. A gynecological referral was made. JMC billed this visit as a "extended" one (procedure code 90070) and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. October 9, 1991, Visit and Streptococcal Test S.M. visited the clinic again on October 9, 1991. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. It also sought and obtained separate payment for a streptococcal (hereinafter referred to as "strep") test (procedure code 86317) given during the visit. Both parties are now in agreement that the billing and payment for the strep test was appropriate 9/ and that the office visit should have been billed and paid, not as an "extended" visit, but as an "intermediate" visit, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. November 6, 1991, Visit Cerumen Removal and Strep Test On November 6, 1991, S.M. presented at the clinic complaining of sinus problems and pustules on her nose. She was diagnosed as having folliculitis, pharyngitis and sinusitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. It also sought and obtained separate payment for impacted cerumen removal (procedure code 69210) and a strep test. The parties are in agreement that the billings and payments for the impacted cerumen removal and strep test were appropriate. 10/ A dispute still exists, however, as to the appropriateness of JMC billing and receiving payment for an "extended" visit. JMC's medical records pertaining to the visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was not an "extended" visit, but was merely an "intermediate" visit, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. Moreover, these records were not signed by the attending physician "on the date of service or within 24 hours," as required by Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. 11/ Accordingly, JMC should not have received any payment for this office visit. Patient 2 (O.R.) October 7, 1991, Billings JMC billed and was paid for a "comprehensive" visit and other services (procedure codes 86317, 94010 and 94664) it claimed it rendered Patient 2, O.R., on October 7, 1991, but the medical records maintained by JMC, to the extent that they are legible, do not document that, on that date, O.R. was seen at the clinic by a physician or that she received the other billed for services. Accordingly, payment should not have been made to Petitioner for an office visit of any type or for any of the other services Petitioner claimed it rendered O.R. on October 7, 1991. October 22, 1991, Visit On October 22, 1991, O.R. presented at the clinic with a fever, sore throat and high blood pressure. In addition, she complained that she was wheezing, suffering from headaches and had a runny nose. At the time of the visit, O.R. was five feet, two inches tall and weighed 206 pounds. The attending physician determined that O.R. was suffering from asthma. Using a nebulizer, he treated her with Ventolin. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. October 24, 1991, Visit, Routine Venipuncture and Therapeutic Injection O.R. returned to the clinic two days later, on October 24, 1991, with respiratory problems. She was coughing and wheezing severely. Her throat was red. The attending physician determined that O.R. had pharyngitis, pneumonia and severe asthma. Treatment was provided. Medications were prescribed and oral instructions regarding medication administration and compliance were given. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was, as JMC claimed, an "extended" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC also sought and obtained separate payment for a routine venipuncture (procedure code 36415) and a therapeutic injection for asthma (procedure code 90782). The parties are in agreement that the routine venipuncture was appropriately billed and paid. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a therapeutic injection, however, is still in dispute. JMC's medical records, to the extent that they are legible, do not document that O.R. was given the billed and paid-for therapeutic injection on October 24, 1991. Accordingly, it should not have been paid for this service. Patient 3 (T.F.) January 31, 1991, Visit On January 31, 1991, Patient 3, T.F., a ten-year old girl who had already begun menstruating, presented at the clinic with complaints of vomiting for the past two days, as well as cramps and abdominal pain. She further indicated that she had had her last menstrual period two weeks previous. A physical examination, which included the genital and rectal areas, was conducted, a history was taken and a strep test was given. The results of the strep test were positive. The attending physician determined that T.F. had strep throat, for which she received treatment. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "extended" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. September 19, 1991, Visit On September 19, 1991, T.F. presented at the clinic complaining of a high fever and a sore throat. She further indicated that she had vomited earlier in the morning. A physical examination, which did not include the genital area, was conducted, an updated history was taken and a strep test was given. The attending physician determined that T.F. had tonsillitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 4 (K.W.) October 3, 1991, Visit On October 3, 1991, Patient 4, K.W., presented at the clinic. He had lower back pain, an upper respiratory tract infection, trauma to his right ankle and folliculitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. November 4, 1991, Billings JMC billed and was paid for an "extended" visit and another service (procedure code 86317) it claimed it rendered K.W. on November 4, 1991, but the medical records maintained by JMC do not contain legible, physician-signed and dated documentation substantiating that, on that date, K.W. was seen at the clinic by a physician or that he received the other billed-for service. Accordingly, payment should not have been made to Petitioner for any type of office visit or for the other service Petitioner claimed it rendered K.W. on November 4, 1991. Patient 5 (S.W.) October 19, 1990, Visit JMC billed and was paid for a "comprehensive" office visit, in addition to an EPSDT screen (procedure code W9881), for services rendered to Patient 5, S.W., on October 19, 1990. The parties are in agreement that the EPSDT screen was appropriately billed and paid. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, is still in dispute. The medical records maintained by JMC do not contain legible, physician-signed and dated documentation justifying JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. October 29, 1990, Visit S.W. again visited the clinic on October 29, 1990. This was a follow- up visit. She had been to the clinic four days previous with a high fever and complaining of a headache, stuffiness and a cough. JMC billed S.W.'s October 29, 1990, visit as an "intermediate" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. May 14, 1991, Visit On May 14, 1991, S.W. presented at the clinic complaining of a cough. She was diagnosed as having an upper respiratory tract infection. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. May 29, 1991, Visit Two weeks later, on May 29, 1991, S.W. returned to the clinic for a follow-up visit. She was still coughing. Tests taken before the visit revealed that, in addition to her respiratory problems, S.W. was suffering from iron deficiency. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. June 12, 1991, Visit On June 12, 1991, S.W. paid another follow-up visit to the clinic. During the visit, she admitted that she had not taken her medication "properly." A spirometry test taken before the visit revealed "severe obstruction." Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 6 (B.F.) July 12, 1990, Visit On July 12, 1990, Patient 6, B.F., a 32-year old woman, presented at the clinic complaining of chest palpitations and abdominal pain. A physical examination, which included an examination of the vaginal and pelvic areas, was conducted, a history was taken, tests were ordered and treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was, as JMC claimed, a "comprehensive" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore not overpaid for this visit. January 14, 1991, Visit B.F. visited the clinic on January 14, 1991, complaining of lower abdominal discomfort, which, she claimed, she had been experiencing for the past two weeks. The attending physician determined that, in addition to the abdominal discomfort B.F. was experiencing, she also had vaginitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. January 28, 1991, Visit On January 28, 1991, B.F. presented at the clinic complaining of general malaise and a cough that she claimed she had had for four or five days. The attending physician determined that B.F. was suffering from acute bronchitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "intermediate" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. April 24, 1991, Visit On April 24, 1991, B.F. presented at the clinic complaining of chest pain, headaches and dizziness she had been experiencing for several days. She also had shortness of breath. A physical examination, which included an examination of the genital and rectal areas, was conducted, an updated history was taken and tests were ordered. The chest pain was determined to be non-cardiac in nature. It was thought to be caused by a tender rib. Medication was prescribed to combat B.F.'s headaches and dizziness. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "extended" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. May 1, 1991, Visit On May 1, 1991, B.F. paid a followup visit to the clinic. She reported that she was still experiencing dizziness, but no longer had any chest pain or headaches. She further advised that she was unable to tolerate the medication that had been prescribed on the previous visit. A rhythm strip test was administered. A new medication was prescribed to combat B.F.'s dizziness. JMC billed this visit as an "intermediate" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 7 (C.C.) July 23, 1991, Visit On July 23, 1991, Patient 7, C.C., visited the clinic for the removal of a lesion from her nose by electrodesiccation. JMC billed this visit as an "intermediate" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 8 (L.F.) October 21, 1991, Visit On October 21, 1991, Patient 8, L.F., presented at the clinic complaining of a skin rash. The attending physician determined that L.F. was suffering from impetigo, as well as bronchitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 9 (L.A.) November 26, 1990, Visit On November 26, 1990, Patient 9, L.A., presented at the clinic complaining of chest pain. JMC billed this visit as an "intermediate" one and payment was made accordingly. The parties now agree that such billing and payment was appropriate and thus JMC was not overpaid for this visit. March 28, 1991, Visit On March 28, 1991, L.A. presented at the clinic complaining of chest and abdominal pain. 152. The attending physician determined that the chest pain was non- cardiac in nature and that L.A. was suffering from gastritis. 153. Medication was prescribed. 154. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. May 6, 1991, Visit On May 6, 1991, L.A. visited the clinic to obtain birth control pills. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "brief" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. June 17, 1991, Visit On June 17, 1991, L.A. presented to the clinic complaining of a sore throat and back pain. The latter ailment was the result of her having been hit in the back with a chair that was thrown at her at work. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. August 8, 1991, Debridement On August 8, 1991, L.A. presented to the clinic complaining of a gash on her left leg that she had received the night before, as well as a headache and continuing back pain. The leg wound was cleaned. Necrotic tissue around the edge of the wound was removed. JMC billed for a debridement (procedure code 11042) and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the billed and paid-for debridement was performed, as claimed by JMC. JMC was therefore appropriately paid for this procedure. September 27, 1991, Visit On September 27, 1991, L.A. presented at the clinic complaining of diarrhea, a cold and postnasal drip. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. October 28, 1991, Visit On October 28, 1991, L.A. presented to the clinic complaining of a sore throat. She further indicated that she had been exposed to the flu. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "intermediate" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 10 (B.W.) February 26, 1991, Visit and EPSDT Screen On February 26, 1991, Patient 10, B.W., who was then twelve years old, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. complaining of an abscess behind her ear and a sore throat. The screen was performed. In addition, B.W.'s abscess was drained and her sore throat was treated. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. 12/ JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that, as claimed by JMC, a complete EPSDT screen, as described in Chapter 11 of the EPSDT Handbook, was performed. The billing and payment for such a screen therefore was appropriate. These medical records, however, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. March 1, 1991, Billing JMC billed and was paid for services rendered B.W. during an "intermediate" office visit it claimed took place on March 1, 1991, but the physician signed-medical records maintained by JMC, to the extent that they are legible, do not document that B.W. was seen that day at the clinic by a physician. Payment for such an office visit therefore should not have been made. March 13, 1991, Visit On March 13, 1991, B.W. presented at the clinic with multiple, yet relatively uncomplicated, medical problems, including iron deficiency. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. June 24, 1991, Visit On June 24, 1991, B.W. presented at the clinic complaining of a skin rash. She also had a slightly elevated temperature. The attending physician determined that B.W had dermatitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. June 27, 1991 Visit Three days later, on June 27, 1991, B.W. again visited the clinic. This time she had an abscess in the area of her left armpit. The abscess was drained. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. 13/ JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. October 18, 1991, Visit and EPSDT Screen On October 18, 1991, B.W. presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen complaining of an abscess in the area of her right armpit and a sore throat. The screen was performed. In addition, B.W.'s abscess was drained and her sore throat was treated. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. 14/ JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that, as claimed by JMC, a complete EPSDT screen, as described in Chapter 11 of the EPSDT Handbook, was performed. The billing and payment for such a screen therefore was appropriate. These medical records, however, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. Patient 11 (T.M.) October 30, 1990, Visit On October 30, 1990, Patient 11, T.M., who was then six years of age, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. The screen was performed. During the screen, a wart was discovered on T.M.'s left wrist. The wart was removed. The procedure took approximately 15 minutes. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. 15/ The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, is still in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. May 9, 1991, Visit T.M. presented at the clinic on May 9, 1991, with an elevated temperature. The attending physician determined that he had an upper respiratory tract infection. Medication was prescribed. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 12 (D.W.) November 30, 1990, Visit On November 30, 1990, Patient 11, D.W., who was then three months old, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. He had a stuffy nose. The screen was performed. The physician performing the screen determined that D.W. was suffering from an upper respiratory tract infection and otitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, is still in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. December 14, 1990, Visit On December 14, 1990, D.W. presented at the clinic. His mother reported that D.W. had a persistent cough. D.W. was given a strep test, the results of which were negative. The attending physician determined that D.W. still had an upper respiratory tract infection and otitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. December 17 and 27, 1990, Visits D.W. visited the clinic on December 17, 1990, and again on December 27, 1990. JMC billed these visits as "intermediate" ones and payments were made accordingly. The parties agree that these billings and payments were appropriate. January 21, 1991, Visit On January 21, 1991, D.W. returned to the clinic with his mother. He had a fever of 102 degrees Fahrenheit, which, his mother reported, he had had for the past four days. Following an examination and a strep test, the attending physician determined that D.W. had a strep throat and an ear infection. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. June 7, 1991, Visit On June 7, 1991, D.W. presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. The screen was performed. During the screen, it was discovered that D.W had an ear problem, for which he received treatment. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, is still in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office on this date. June 21, 1991, Visit 254. D.W. returned to the clinic on June 21, 1991, with an ear infection and a rash behind his right ear. 255. Treatment was provided. 256. JMC billed this visit as an "intermediate" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was, as JMC claimed, an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore not overpaid for this visit. July 23, 1991, Visit On July 23, 1991, D.W. presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. The screen was performed. During the screen, the attending physician determined that D.W. was suffering from diaper rash. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, is still in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. Patient 13 (J.H.) December 29, 1990, Visit and EPSDT Screen On December 29, 1990, J.H., who was then three years of age, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. She was suffering from constipation. During the screen, the attending physician determined that J.H. also had vaginitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, do not document that a complete screen was performed. For example, there is no indication that J.H.'s teeth and gums were examined during the visit. Accordingly, JMC was not entitled to receive any payment for an EPSDT screen. Furthermore, these medical records document that the visit was not a "comprehensive" one, but was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. January 4, 1991, Visit On January 4, 1991, J.H. presented at the clinic. She looked ill and had glassy eyes. It was reported that her temperature (taken with a rectal thermometer) had reached 104 degrees Fahrenheit at home. When her temperature was taken (again rectally) at the clinic, however, it was only 99.2 degrees Fahrenheit. The attending physician determined that J.H. had a urinary tract infection and pharyngitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 14 (J.Y.) April 20, 1991, Visit On April 20, 1991, Patient 14, J.Y., a 25-year old woman suffering from obesity and hypertension, presented at the clinic to obtain a refill of medication that she had been given on a previous visit. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 15 (K.C.) September 20, 1991, Visit On September 20, 1991, Patient 15, K.C., who was then four years of age, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. The screen was performed. During the screen, the attending physician determined that K.C. was suffering from an upper respiratory ailment. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and an "intermediate" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for an "intermediate" office visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. Patient 16 (D.W.) December 17, 1991, Visit On December 17, 1991, Patient 16, D.W., who was then eight years of age, presented to the clinic for an EPSDT screen. During the screen, the attending physician determined that D.W. was suffering from dermatitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and an "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen lacks adequate supporting documentation. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was not a "comprehensive" one, but was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 17 (R.G.) There are no issues in dispute concerning any billings and payments made in connection with services JMC rendered to Patient 17, R.G. Patient 18 (C.F.) February 12, 1991, Visit On February 12, 1991, C.F., a 25-year old woman, presented at the clinic complaining of profuse menstrual bleeding. The attending physician determined that C.F. was simply having irregular menstrual periods and that medical intervention was not warranted. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. November 18, 1991, Visit On November 18, 1991, C.F. returned to the clinic. She still had irregular menstrual periods and, in addition, she complained of a heavy discharge of breast milk from both of her breasts. Tests were ordered. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. December 9, 1991, Visit On December 9, 1991, C.F. again visited the clinic. This time she had an upper respiratory tract infection. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 19 (J.R.) September 17, 1990, Visit On September 17, 1990, Patient 19, J.R., who was then six months old, visited the clinic. 16/ He had, what his mother described as, a "bad cold." The attending physician determined that J.R. had an upper respiratory tract infection and bronchitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. January 31, 1991, Visit On January 31, 1991, J.R. presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. The screen was performed. During the screen, the attending physician determined that J.R. was suffering from a rash, a mild upper respiratory ailment, and a sore throat. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and an "extended" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for an "extended" office visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. February 26, 1991, Visit On February 26, 1991, J.R. again visited the clinic. He had an ear infection and diaper rash. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. May 1, 1991, Visit On May 1, 1991, J.R. paid another visit to the clinic. Diaper rash was still a problem. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. May 29, 1991, Visit J.R. returned to the clinic on May 29, 1991. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, do not document that any of JMC's staff physicians provided medically necessary services to J.R. on this date. While these records do reflect that J.R. received an abbreviated physical examination during his visit to the clinic, they do not reveal why the examination was conducted or what conclusions the attending physician reached as a result of the examination. Accordingly, JMC should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. Patient 21 (T.M.) April 26, 1991, Visit On April 26, 1991, Patient 21, T.M., who was then five years of age, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. He had sickle cell anemia, but was doing well. The screen was performed. Following the screen, the attending physician recommended that T.R. continue taking folic acid and vitamins. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. Patient 22 ( K.C.) August 28, 1990, Visit On August 28, 1990, Patient 22, K.C., who was then six months old and had recently been exposed to hepatitis B, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. The screen was performed. The attending physician did not believe that K.C. had contracted hepatitis B. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. Patient 23 ( K.G.) July 10, 1990, Visit On July 10, 1990, Patient 23, K.G., presented at the clinic complaining of a vaginal discharge. The attending physician determined that K.G. was suffering from vaginitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. October 15, 1990, Visit On October 15, 1990, K.G. presented at the clinic complaining of a rash in the area of her groin. The attending physician determined that K.G. had folliculitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "intermediate" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. February 15, 1991, Visit On February 15, 1991, K.G. presented at the clinic complaining of swelling in her legs. 17/ The attending physician determined that she had pinworms. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. March 8, 1991, Visit On March 8, 1991, K.G. presented at the clinic complaining of rectal pain and a persistent cough. The attending physician determined that K.G. had pharyngitis, pneumonia and an anal fissure. Treatment, which included the use of an aerosol spray, was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. 18/ 372. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was, as claimed by JMC, an "extended" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore not overpaid for this visit. June 6, 1991, Visit On June 6, 1991, K.G. visited the clinic complaining of weight gain and pain in her left side. The attending physician determined that the pain was caused by gas and prescribed medication to combat the problem. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. June 28, 1991, Visit On June 28, 1991, K.G. presented at the clinic complaining of a sore throat and a cough producing yellowish sputum. She claimed that she had had the sore throat for three to four days. A strep test was given, the results of which were negative. The attending physician determined that K.G. had bronchitis and pharyngitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. August 1, 1991, Visit On August 1, 1991, K.G. presented at the clinic. 19/ She had a pararectal abscess and a urinary tract infection. The abscess was drained. In addition, treatment was provided for the urinary tract infection. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. 20/ JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. September 5, 1991, Visit On September 5, 1991, K.G. presented at the clinic. She had a cough and sore throat. A strep test was given, the results of which were negative. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 24 (L.W.) December 10, 1990, Visit On December 10, 1990, Patient 24, L.W., who was then five years of age, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. The screen was performed. As part of the screen, her weight was taken. She weighed only 30 pounds. 401. Because she had a persistent cough and a runny nose, a strep test was given, the results of which were positive. 402. JMC billed for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. 403. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. July 2, 1991, Visit On July 2, 1991, L.W. presented at the clinic. 21/ Her right breast was enlarged. In addition, she had pharyngitis and impacted cerumen in her ears. A strep test was given, the results of which were negative. Treatment, which included the removal of the impacted cerumen, was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. 22/ JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 25 (R.W.) October 3, 1991, Visit On October 3, 1991, Patient 25, R.W., who was then four months old, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. 23/ He had an asthmatic condition and bronchitis. The screen was performed. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. 24/ JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. October 10, 1991, Visit On October 10, 1991, R.W. presented at the clinic for another EPSDT screen. His asthma and bronchitis were much improved. The screen was performed. No new problems were discovered. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. 25/ JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. October 16, 1991, Visit On October 16, 1991, R.W. returned to the clinic. His condition had worsened and he was crying in his mother's arms. In addition to the problems he had had previously, he now also had an ear infection. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. October 24, 1991, Visit R.W. paid a follow-up visit to the clinic on October 24, 1991. His condition had improved since his last visit to the clinic on October 16, 1991. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that this visit, like R.W.'s prior visit to the clinic, was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 26 (E.W.) September 16, 1991, Visit On September 16, 1991, Patient 26, E.W., who was then four months old, presented at the clinic with a cold and cough. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen lacks sufficient supporting documentation. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was not a "comprehensive" one, but was merely a "brief" or "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 27 (C.S.) 26/ November 4, 1991, Visit and EPSDT Screen On November 4, 1991, Patient 27, C.S., who was then seven months old, presented at the clinic. She was suffering from a cold. Treatment was provided. JMC billed for an EPSDT screen and an "extended" visit. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, do not document that a complete screen was performed. For example, these records contain no nutritional or developmental assessment, nor do they indicate that there was any health education given. Accordingly, JMC should not have received any payment for an EPSDT screen. Furthermore, these medical records document that the visit was not an "extended" one, but was merely a "brief" or "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 28 (S.S.) 27/ May 15, 1991, Visit On May 15, 1991, Patient 28, S.S., presented at the clinic complaining of keloid skin masses on both of her ears which, she indicated, she wanted removed. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. The parties now agree that the visit should have instead been billed as an "intermediate" one and that therefore JMC was overpaid for this visit. May 29, 1991, Visit On May 29, 1991, S.S. returned to the clinic for evaluation and treatment of her keloids. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. The parties now agree that the visit should have instead been characterized as a "limited" one. In any event, the medical records of this visit were not signed by the attending physician "on the date of service or within 24 hours," as required by Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. Accordingly, payment should not have been made to Petitioner for any level of service rendered S.S. on May 29, 1991. June 12, 1991, Visit On June 12, 1991, S.S. paid another visit to the clinic for further evaluation and treatment of her keloids. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. The parties now agree that the visit should have instead been characterized as a "limited" one. In any event, the medical records of this visit were not signed by the attending physician "on the date of service or within 24 hours," as required by Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. Accordingly, payment should not have been made to Petitioner for any level of service rendered S.S. on June 12, 1991. July 10, 1991, Visit On July 10, 1991, S.S. again visited the clinic for further evaluation and treatment of her keloids. JMC billed this visit as an "intermediate" one and payment was made accordingly. The parties now agree that the visit should have instead been characterized as a "limited" one. In any event, the medical records of this visit were not signed by the attending physician "on the date of service or within 24 hours," as required by Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. Accordingly, payment should not have been made to Petitioner for any level of service rendered S.S. on July 10, 1991. August 7, 1991, Visit S.S. went back to the clinic on August 7, 1991, for further evaluation and treatment of her keloids. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. The parties now agree that the visit should have instead been billed as a "limited" one and that therefore JMC was overpaid for this visit. September 12, 1991, Visit On September 12, 1991, S.S. presented at the clinic for additional evaluation and treatment of her keloids, which were scheduled to be removed the following day. She also had a sore throat. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. The parties now agree that the visit should have instead been billed as a "limited" one and that therefore JMC was overpaid for this visit. September 19, 1991, Visit Only one of the keloids, the one on her left ear, was removed on September 13, 1991. Six days later, on September 19, 1991, S.S. visited the clinic for a postsurgical examination and to discuss the removal of the keloid on her right ear. She presented at the clinic with a sore throat and earache. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. September 26, 1991, Visit S.S. returned to the clinic on September 26, 1991. She had an abscess on her ear. The abscess was incised and drained. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. 28/ JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was not a "comprehensive" one, but was merely a "brief" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. October 7, 1991, Debridement On October 7, 1991, S.S. presented at the clinic complaining of continuing skin problems on and behind her ears. An abscess and "raggedy" skin were discovered. The abscess was incised and drained and the "raggedy" skin was removed. JMC billed and was paid for a debridement. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the billed and paid-for debridement was performed, as claimed by JMC, and that therefore JMC was entitled to the payment it received for the debridement. Patient 29 (T.J.) January 28, 1991, Visit On January 28, 1991, Patient 29, T.J., who was then one month old, was seen at the clinic. She had congenitally deformed ("toe[d] in") feet, multiple insect bites and diaper rash. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. January 30, 1991, Visit T.J. returned to the clinic two days later. She had been vomiting for the past two days. In addition, she had a sore throat and an earache. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. April 22, 1991, Visit On April 22, 1991, T.J. presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. The screen was performed. During the screen, it was determined that T.J. had dermatitis caused by insect bites. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. April 24, 1991, Visit On April 24, 1991, T.J. again visited the clinic. Her dermatitis was still causing her some discomfort. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was not appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was not a "comprehensive" one, but was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 30 (G.D.) March 11, 1991, Visit On March 11, 1991, Patient 30, G.D., who was then four years old, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. The screen was performed. The screen revealed that G.D. had upper respiratory problems, as well as an umbilical hernia. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. April 22, 1991, Visit G.D. was next seen at the clinic on April 22, 1991. He had pharyngitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. June 3, 1991, Visit G.D. next visited the clinic on June 3, 1991. He had a mild upper respiratory tract infection. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 31 (H.C.) October 15, 1990, Visit On October 15, 1990, H.C., who was then 18 years old, presented at the clinic complaining of delayed menstruation. She was given a pregnancy test, the results of which revealed that she was pregnant. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and an "extended" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was not appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for an "extended" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was not an "extended" one, but was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 32 (R.M.) February 12, 1991, Visit On February 12, 1991, Patient 32, R.M., who was then four years old, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. The screen was performed. The screen revealed impacted cerumen in R.M.'s ears. The impacted cerumen was removed. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. 29/ The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. Patient 33 (C.W.) December 3, 1990, Visit On December 3, 1990, Patient 33, C.W., who was then four years old, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. The screen was performed. The screen revealed impacted cerumen in C.W.'s ears and that R.M. had pharyngitis. Treatment, including the removal of the impacted cerumen, was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. 30/ The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. August 22, 1991, Visit 534. On August 22, 1991, C.W. presented at the clinic complaining of a headache. 535. The attending physician determined that C.W. had pharyngitis. 536. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and an "extended" office visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was not appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for an "extended" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was not an "extended" one, but was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. October 7, 1991, Visit On October 7, 1991, C.W. again visited the clinic. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. The parties now agree that the visit should have instead been billed and paid for as a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. October 10, 1991, Visit Three days later, on October 10, 1991, C.W. returned to the clinic. She had tonsillitis, pharyngitis and an upper respiratory infection. Her temperature was 103.4 degrees Fahrenheit. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and an "extended" office visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was not appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for an "extended" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was not an "extended" one, but was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 34 (K.K.) September 19, 1990, Visit On September 19, 1990, Patient 34, K.K., who was then three years old, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. He had a runny nose and a cough. His mother also complained that he was hyperactive. 549. The screen was performed. 550. The screen revealed that K.K. had impacted cerumen in his ears. 551. provided. Treatment, including the removal of the impacted cerumen, was 552. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. 31/ The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. December 17, 1990, Visit On or about December 17, 1990, K.K. returned to the clinic. He had dermatitis, as well as impacted cerumen in his ears. In addition, his mother was concerned about his behavior. Treatment, including the removal of the impacted cerumen, was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. 32/ JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. January 3, 1991, Visit On January 3, 1991, K.K. returned to the clinic for a physical examination for school. During the visit, his mother complained that K.K.'s appetite for food had decreased. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. Patient 35 (T.B.) November 15, 1990, Visit On November 15, 1990, Patient 35, T.B., presented at the clinic for a physical examination for work. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. December 20, 1990, Visit T.B. returned to the clinic on December 20, 1990, complaining that she was not feeling well. During the visit, impacted cerumen was removed from her ears. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. 33/ JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "brief or "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. July 18, 1991, Visit On July 18, 1991, T.B. went to the clinic to obtain "medical certificates." A routine physical examination was performed, but no history was taken. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "brief or "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. December 4, 1991, Visit On December 4, 1991, T.B. presented at the clinic with "pink eye." Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 36 (D.W.) January 2, 1991, Visit On January 2, 1991, Patient 36, D.W., who was then 19 years of age, visited the clinic for a checkup. The attending physician determined that D.W. had an iron deficiency and anemia, for which treatment was provided. During the visit, family planning issues were also addressed. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. April 17, 1991, Visit On April 17, 1991, D.W. presented at the clinic complaining that she had been feeling ill for two days. 34/ 592. A strep test was given, the results of which were negative. The attending physician determined that D.W had tonsillitis and was still suffering from anemia. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. September 16, 1991, Visit On September 16, 1991, D.W. presented at the clinic. She had a sore throat and vaginitis. 35/ In addition, she was now pregnant and still anemic. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and an "extended" visit. 601. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was not appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for an "extended" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was not an "extended" one, but was merely an intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. October 17, 1991, Visit On October 17, 1991, D.W., who was still pregnant at the time, made a follow-up visit to the clinic. She complained of shortness of breath and tightness in her chest, as well as a sore throat. A fetal examination was conducted. A strep test was given, the results of which were negative. The attending physician determined that D.W. had a urinary tract infection, sinusitis, pharyngitis and anemia. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. November 14, 1991, Visit and Echography D.W. returned to the clinic on November 14, 1991. She was in approximately the thirty-second week of her pregnancy and she was still suffering from a urinary tract infection and anemia. Her sinus condition was improving. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. It also sought and received separate payment for an echography (procedure code 76855). The parties now agree that JMC should not have been paid for an echography. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was not a "comprehensive" one, but was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. December 3, 1991, Visit A still-pregnant D.W. visited the clinic again on December 3, 1991, complaining of shortness of breath. The attending physician determined that she was still suffering from a urinary tract infection and anemia. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. December 10, 1991, Visit A week later, on December 10, 1991, with her anticipated date of delivery approaching, D.W. returned to the clinic complaining of vaginal irritation and pain in her left wrist. Her urinary tract infection was improving. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 37 (E.A.) September 27, 1991, Visit On September 27, 1991, Patient 37, E.A., who was then seven weeks old, presented at the clinic with an upper respiratory infection, pharyngitis and thrush. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. October 18, 1991, Visit E.A. returned to the clinic on October 18, 1991, for an EPSDT screen. 633. The screen was performed. The screen revealed that he still had an upper respiratory infection and thrush. Treatment was provided. JMC billed for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, do not justify JMC billing for any office visit in addition to an EPSDT screen. JMC therefore should not have received any payment for an office visit on this date. November 20, 1991, Visit E.A. visited the clinic again on November 20, 1991. He had a bad cough and a green discharge from his eyes and nose. The attending physician determined that E.A. had an upper respiratory infection and pharyngitis, as well as a "foreign body" in his nose. Treatment, including the removal of the "foreign body," was provided. 36/ JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was, as claimed by JMC, an "extended" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore entitled to the payment it received for this visit. November 21, 1991, Incision and Removal JMC billed and was paid for an incision and removal of a "foreign body" (procedure code 10120) it claimed had been performed on E.A. at the clinic on November 21, 1991, but the medical records maintained by JMC, to the extent that they are legible, do not document that E.A. received an incision and removal at the clinic on this date. Accordingly, payment should not have been made to JMC for this billed-for service. Patient 38 (O.S.) December 2, 1991, Visit and EPSDT Screen On December 2, 1991, Patient 38, O.S., who was then three months old, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. She had a cold and blotches all over her body and her hair was falling out. The screen revealed that O.S. had tinea capitis, otodynia, and pharyngitis, as well as impacted cerumen in her ears. Treatment, including the removal of the impacted cerumen, was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. 37/ JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, do not document that a complete EPSDT screen was performed. For example, these records contain no developmental assessment, nor do they indicate that there was any health education given. Accordingly, JMC should not have received payment for an EPSDT screen. Furthermore, these medical records document that the visit was not a "comprehensive" one, but was merely an "extended" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. December 9, 1991 O.S. returned to the clinic a week later on December 9, 1991. She had a new rash on her left arm. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 39 (T.G.) September 5, 1991, Visit On September 5, 1991, Patient 39, T.G., who was then three months old, presented at the clinic for an EPSDT screen. She had a stuffy nose and was crying. According to his mother, he had been crying for the past 12 hours. The screen was performed. A strep test was given, the results of which were negative. The attending physician determined that T.G. had an ear infection, an upper respiratory tract infection and phayrngitis. Treatment was provided. JMC billed and was paid for an EPSDT screen and a "comprehensive" visit. The parties agree that the billing and payment for an EPSDT screen was appropriate. The appropriateness of the billing and payment for a "comprehensive" visit, however, remains in dispute. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, justify JMC billing and receiving payment for, in addition to an EPSDT screen, only an "intermediate" office visit and not a "comprehensive" one. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. September 19, 1991, Visit T.G. returned to the clinic for a follow-up visit on September 19, 1991. He had diaper rash. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 40 (T.B.) November 26, 1991, Visit On November 26, 1991, T.B., a 62-year old man with a history of heart disease, hypertension and stroke, presented at the clinic with a periorbital abscess. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. 38/ JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. November 29, 1991, Visit Three days later, on November 29, 1991, T.B. returned to the clinic again complaining about the abscess. The attending physician reevaluated the problem and referred T.B. to Jackson Memorial Hospital for treatment. JMC billed this visit as an "intermediate" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. Patient 41 (L.B.) January 25, 1991, Visit On January 25, 1991, Patient 41, L.B., who was then 19 years of age and had history of mental illness, presented at the clinic stating that she was pregnant and complaining, among other things, of abdominal pain. She appeared to be confused and it was difficult to obtain an accurate history from her. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as an "extended" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. April 17, 1991, Visit L.B. returned to the clinic on April 17, 1991, complaining of continuing abdominal pain, vaginal discharge, breast tenderness and nausea. The attending physician determined that L.B. had vaginitis and a urinary tract infection. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. November 25, 1991, Visit L.B. visited the clinic again on November 25, 1991. On this visit she complained of a rash. The attending physician determined that L.B. had dermatitis. 694. Treatment was provided. JMC billed this visit as a "comprehensive" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, however, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was merely a "limited" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. JMC was therefore overpaid for this visit. December 6, 1991, Visit On December 6, 1991, L.B. presented at the clinic claiming that there were things crawling on her scalp. The attending physician determined that L.B. was demented. He filled out a Social Security Administration form indicating that it was his opinion that L.B. was "not medically competent." JMC billed this visit as an "intermediate" one and payment was made accordingly. JMC's physician-signed, medical records pertaining to this visit, to the extent that they are legible, document that the visit was, as claimed by JMC, an "intermediate" one, as described in Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook. Simple Mistake or Fraud? There has been no allegation made, nor proof submitted, that any of the overbillings referenced above were the product of anything other than simple mistake or inadvertence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration adopt the findings made by the Hearing Officer regarding the sampled claims remaining in dispute in the instant case and use these findings to redetermine the total amount of Medicaid overpayments made to Petitioner during the audit period and the amount of the fine Petitioner should be required to pay for its erroneous billings during this period of time. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd of May, 1995. STUART M. LERNER 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 22nd day of May, 1995.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether Petitioners are entitled to the Medicaid payments which they received or whether the claims filed by Petitioners were improper. At hearing Petitioners presented the testimony of Gary Allen Kitos; Joseph Namey, D.O.: Herbert Moselli; Robert Grenitz, M.D.; Mary Bone; Herbert Topol, D.O.; Sylvan Goldin, D.O.; and Mildred Martin. Topol Exhibits 1-3 and 5 were admitted in evidence. Goldin Exhibits 1-4, 6 and 7 were admitted in evidence. Topol-Goldin General Practice (GP) Exhibits 1-7 and 35-37 were admitted in evidence. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) presented the testimony of Jules J. Cohen, D.O.; Morton T. Smith, D.O.; and Mildred Martin. HRS also presented the testimony by deposition of Lawrence E. Stivers and Michael W. Forsthoefel, M.D. HRS Exhibits 1-23 were admitted in evidence. Joint Exhibits 1-4 were also admitted, which include three inventory lists and four separate large boxes of patient records. The parties filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. All proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law have been considered. A ruling has been made on each proposed finding of fact in the Appendix hereto and made a part hereof.
Findings Of Fact During 1932, Petitioners Goldin, Topol, and the Topol- Goldin General Practice Clinic were all operating out of the same facility but each billed Medicaid under a separate physician provider number. Medicaid is a joint state and federal program that is completely voluntary. In entering into a provider agreement with Medicaid, Topol, Goldin and the General Practice Clinic agreed to abide by the provisions of the Florida Administrative Rules, Florida Statutes, policies, procedures, manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program and federal laws and regulations. Under the Medicaid Program, a state may limit the services provided for under federal regulations. As part of the requirements for participation in Medicaid, the State of Florida has a peer review process to monitor all providers. Peer review is a recognized process utilized by third party payors (such as Medicaid, Medicare and insurance companies) to assure that they are getting the services for which they are paying. Florida's Medicaid peer review process is modeled after the federal Medicare Program's process. In Florida approximately 7,000 physicians are enrolled in the Medicaid program at any one time. In order to monitor all of these physicians' practices, the Medicaid Program reviews those physicians whose practice exceeds the parameters of the average Medicaid physician's practice. Reviews of physicians' practices number between 60 to 85 physicians per year. Approximately 40-50% of those physicians reviewed are referred for peer review. The Medicaid review for physicians consists of a Level I review of the physician's activity in the program compared to the physician's peers. If the physician exceeds the upper limits in the Level I review, a desk review is done by medical consultants who review a "claims detail" of all claims for payment made by the provider. If further review is needed, a disproportionate stratified random sample (DSRS) of the physician's claims is obtained and the physician's patient records for those claims are obtained. The physician's records are first reviewed by a Medicaid physician consultant who determines if peer review is necessary. After a peer review is done, an in-house consultant does a line-by-line evaluation based on the peer review findings and medical necessity and makes a recommendation for denial of claims. Those claims denied are then converted into an amount of money for disallowance. The Medicaid program does not review physicians just because of the amount of money they make in the program. In September of 1981 the Medicaid Investigative Section requested updates on providers who had previously been investigated in 1977. Goldin, Topol, and the General Practice Clinic were among those providers. Cases for review were then opened for Goldin, Topol, and the General Practice-Clinic in 1982. A preliminary cursory review of the practices of Goldin, Topol, and the General Practice Clinic was prepared by a nursing consultant who recommended that the investigation go forward. During the same time period that the review of Goldin, Topol, and the General Practice Clinic was beginning, a separate review of a Medicaid recipient raised questions of pingponging (going from one doctor to another) between Drs. Topol and Goldin that would justify a further review of their practice. In February and March of 1983, Level II Review reports (desk analysis) were issued on Goldin, Topol, and the General Practice Clinic. These reports contained the Level I Reviews, documentation of the provider's 1982 Medicaid practice, complaints, conclusions, and recommendations. The Level I Review reports included in the Level II Review indicated those areas where the providers exceeded the upper limits of their peers. For example, Dr. Goldin averaged 1,998 Medicaid office visits per quarter compared to an average of 86 for other Medicaid physicians. Dr. Goldin's average exceeded two standard deviations above the average for his peers. The Level II Reviews concluded that the allegations of overutilization for Goldin, Topol, and the General Practice Clinic had been substantiated and it was recommended that they be referred to Peer Review. In March of 1983, a meeting was held to discuss these cases because of their complicated nature. At that meeting, Mildred Martin was instructed to proceed with Peer Review In preparing for Peer Review, disproportionate stratified random samples (DHRS) for Goldin, Topol, and the General Practice Clinic were obtained. A DSRS is the tabulation of the provider's activities or the amounts paid to him for each recipient during a specific period of time. It lists the recipients in ascending order of amounts paid to the provider. Total amounts of the payments made during the period are divided into five strata of the same or close to the same amounts of money. A DSRS is used to give an overall view of the physician's practice. On each DSRS the computer randomly picked 30 patients for a detailed review of their patient records. Because of the volume of practice of Goldin, Topol, and the General Practice Clinic, it would not have been fair to evaluate their entire practice using only 30 records. Therefore, HRS decided to review 7% of records of Topol and Goldin. The General Practice Clinic records were reviewed as randomly selected by the computer. In order to enlarge the sample to 7%, Ms. Martin utilized a random selection process employed by Medicare, which entailed selecting every third patient beginning from the bottom of each strata and working up until a 7% sample was achieved. This does mean that patients in the 7% samples represent the patients in each strata for whom the highest claims were made. When the same patient record appeared in two different samples, the next patient on the list was used to avoid duplication and disallowance of two of the providers for the same patient. The records selected for review were selected randomly and selected utilizing generally accepted statistical techniques. In June of 1983, Goldin, Topol, and the General Practice Clinic were requested to submit the records of those claims selected from the DSRS and the 7% sample process. When it was obvious that the records received were not complete, Ms. Martin contacted the offices of Goldin, Topol and the General Practice Clinic, requesting the missing records. Those records received from Goldin, Topol, and the General Practice Clinic were referred to the Florida Osteopathic Medical Association's (FOMA) Peer Review Committee along with information indicating the areas of concern and a letter of explanation from Dr. Goldin. The FOMA Peer Review Committee is an independent organization made up of approximately ten osteopathic physicians from various parts of the State of Florida. The FOMA contracts with third party carriers (Medicaid) to review peers. The cases supplied to the FOMA Peer Review Committee are reviewed and discussed and the committee issues its opinion on overutilization. The FOMA Peer Review Committee's findings are either no overutilization, minimal overutilization (5-20%) overutilization), moderate overutilization (20-50%) or excessive overutilization (over 50%). Upon receipt of the referral from HRS, the FOMA Peer Review Committee set up a meeting and invited Drs. Topol and Goldin. At that meeting held April 28, 1984, eight (8) physicians of the Peer Review Committee reviewed the charts and interviewed Drs. Topol and Goldin. The Peer Review Committee looked for a trend in the physicians' overall practice. The Peer Review Committee found that the records were poorly documented and difficult to read. The Peer Review Committee found that the patients were being seen more than medically necessary. It was a consensus of the members of the FOMA Peer Review Committee that there was moderate overutilization. By letters dated May 9, 1984, the FOMA Peer Review Committee notified Drs. Topol and Goldin and HRS of their findings. The medical records of Topo1 and Goldin were then sent to Dr. Michael Forsthoefel, M.D., for a line-by-line disallowance of services based upon the Medicaid rules and regulations and the Peer Review Committee's findings. Dr. Forsthoefel disallowed an amount of claims in the range of 30-35% which fell within the level of moderate overutilization (20-50%) determined by the Peer Review Committee, however, since Dr. Forsthoefel was an M.D. and not a D.O., HRS decided that in all fairness the determinations should be made by a D.O. who was a peer of the doctors being reviewed. The medical records of Topol and Goldin under review were-then sent to Dr. Morton T. Smith, D.O., for the line-by- line determination. In order to assure further fairness of the review, Dr. Smith was instructed not to review and disallow any claims by a physician that appeared on a record of the other physician being reviewed. As a result of the new review by Dr. Smith and the instructions given him, the total amount disallowed dropped to 16 or 17%. (The Transcript, p. 635, says 60-70%, but that is a typographical error and should read 16-17%). It is found that the peer review and the disallowances by Dr. Smith were reasonable and accurate. It was then necessary to apply the amount disallowed in the 7% sample to the overall Medicaid claims of Topol and Goldin. HRS performed this calculation by determining the average overpayment for the recipients in each strata sample and multiplying that average by the total number of recipients in each strata. However, because the samples were selected from those recipients in each strata with the highest claims (See Finding of Fact 32), the "average overpayment per recipient" method of extending the overpayments in each sample to the total population of claims is arbitrarily skewed. The result is that Topol and Goldin were exposed to liability greatly in excess of the total amount claimed. The more reasonable method for extending the overpayments in each sample to the total population of claims would be to determine the percentage of disallowed claims in each strata sample and to apply that percentage to the total paid in each strata. For example for Dr. Goldin in Strata I a total of $922 was paid and $30 was disallowed, or a 3.25% disallowance. Applied to the total paid in that strata of $21,600.28, a total overpayment for Strata I is shown to be $702.01. Using this method of calculation, it is determined that Dr. Goldin has been overpaid as follows: Strata I $702.01 (30/922 X 21,600.28) Strata II $2,957.64 (204/1490.92 X 21,620.18) Strata III $2,238.49 (274.24/2378.94 X 21,627.92) Strata IV $3,506.92 (617.95/3805.88 X 21,594.33) Strata V $5,886.05 (1841.36/6729.80 X 21,513.33) Total $15,291.11 Using this method of calculation, it is determined that Dr. Topol has been overpaid as follows: Strata I $1,417.87 (60.98/728.16 X 16,939.88) Strata II $2,263.31 (160.00/1199.63 X 16,966.34) Strata III $2,099.45 (225.74/1823.52 X 16,958.37) Strata IV $2,335.17 (402.96/2935.57 X 17,007.75) Strata V $4,195.75 (1358.14/5443.97 X 16,816.65) Total $12,311.55 The General Practice Clinic was treated differently because it was operated differently. The provider number issued to the General Practice Clinic was applied for and granted to Drs. Topol and Goldin as authorized agents. General Practice Clinic was actually operated and run by Mary Petruff Bone. At the General Practice Clinic, Ms. Bone prescribed and mixed antigens for allergy patients, determined what testings were to be done, and handled other medical problems of patients. Neither Dr. Topol nor Dr. Goldin had any expertise in the field of allergy treatment. The records of the General Practice Clinic were the responsibility and the product of Ms. Bone. At all times material hereto, Ms. Bone was a certified physician's assistant competent to provide services to allergy patients. A physician's assistant is not a physician. At all times material hereto, physicians' assistants could not receive a provider number from Medicaid under which they could bill the Medicaid Program. Ms. Bone billed Medicaid for her services under the General-Practice Clinic's physician provider number. Medicaid was billed for physician's services by the General Practice Clinic even though a physician did not see the patient. It is not usual and customary practice for physicians to bill for their services when they do not see the patients. The State of Florida's Medicaid Program does not authorize payment for services to a physician's assistant under the supervision of a physician. The Medicaid program paid $75,654.73 to the General Practice Clinic in 1982 under its physician provider number. Medicaid did not learn that the General Practice Clinic's billings were for non-physician's services until the Peer Review Committee met with Petitioners on April 28, 1984. For the General Practice Clinic, Dr. Goldin admitted that $40,642.85 should have been disallowed due to improper billing procedures. The $40,642.85 calculated by Dr. Goldin did not take into account any possible double billing or the fact that the clinic's services were performed by a physician's assistant. The records for the General Practice Clinic were not referred to a physician consultant because the payment denials were due strictly to noncompliance with Medicaid rules and regulations, not the overutilization findings of the Peer Review Committee. Medicaid claims for the General Practice Clinic were denied for four basic reasons: 1) No records provided to substantiate the claim; 2) improper billing for B-12 injections; 3) duplicate billing where the General Practice Clinic and Topo or Goldin billed on the same day; and 4) office visits not rendered by a physician. Antigen injections and allergy testing were not disallowed in the claims submitted by the General Practice Clinic because those services are commonly reimbursable when done by someone other than a physician under a physician's supervision. The amounts disallowed for the sample of claims for the General Practice Clinic was then applied to the overall clinic practice in the same manner that the Topol and Goldin amounts were applied to their practice in order to obtain an amount owed the HRS Medicaid Program for the disallowed services. However, again the method used by HRS to extend the overpayment amount determined from the sample to the total population of claims is unreasonable because it does not accurately project the total amount overpaid. For example, in Strata I for the General Practice Clinic, a total of $15,177.73 in Medicaid benefits were paid in 1982. Yet, using the HRS method, a total overpayment of $22,201.44 is determined for that strata, or $7,023.71 more than was ever paid in that strata. Such a result must be unreasonable. If instead the percentage method applied above is used, it is determined that the General Practice Clinic has been overpaid as follows: Strata I $12,659.76 (362/434 X 15,177.73) Strata II $12,784.78 (1447/1719 X 15,188.00) Strata III $12,578.68 (3284/4001 X 15,325.00) Strata IV $13,102.67 (4244/4969 X 15,341.00) Strata V $12,215.79 (5369/6427 X 14,623.00) Total S63,341.68 Some disallowances were made on all three provider numbers because no documentation was provided, even after Ms. Martin asked a second time. These disallowances are proper and correct because Medicaid will not pay for services where there is no documentation justifying the services. The fact that Petitioners now claim to have that documentation is irrelevant to the correctness of the disallowances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order which provides: That Dr. Herbert Topol, D.O., reimburse the Medicaid Program for $12,311.55 in Medicaid overpayments for 1982. That Dr. Sylvan Goldin, D.O., reimburse the Medicaid Program for $15,291.11 in Medicaid overpayments for 1982. That the Topol-Goldin General Practice reimburse the Medicaid Program for $63,341.68 in Medicaid overpayments for 1982. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Herbert Topol, D.O. 1111 W. Broward Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Sylvan Goldin, D.O. 1111 W. Broward Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Page, Jr., Secretary Dept. of HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Petitioners' proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding of Fact 3 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 32. Proposed Finding of Fact 6 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 76. Proposed Finding of Fact 8 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 77. Proposed Finding of Fact 39 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 70. Proposed Finding of Fact 52 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 55. . 6. Proposed Findings of Fact 1, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 47 and 48 are rejected as constituting argument and as being conclusory. 7. Proposed Findings of Fact 2, 4, 16, 22, 23, 24, 30, 33, 35, 36, 40, 46, 49 and 50 are subordinate to the fact actually found. 8. Proposed Findings of Fact 7, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 34, 38, 40, 42, 44, 45 and 46 are irrelevant and/or unnecessary. 9. Proposed Findings of Fact 17, 25, 28, 32, 43 and 51 are not supported by the competent, substantiated evidence. Additionally, Proposed Findings of Fact 25, 28 and 32 are based on and refer to exhibits which were not admitted in evidence. The exhibits are attached to the proposed order and are rejected as an inappropriate attempt to supplement the record. Rulings on Respondent's proposed Findings of Fact. Each of the following proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance or as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the pro- posed Findings of Fact: 1(1); 2(58); 3(59); 4(60); 5(S1); 6(62); 7(63); 8(64); 9(65); 10(66); 11(67); 12(68); 13(69), 14(70) 15(71); 16(72); 17(60); 18(2); 19(3); 20(4); 21(5); 22(6); 24(7) 25(8); 26(9); 27(10); 28(11); 29(12); 30(13); 31(14); 32(15), 33(16); 34(17); 35(18); 36(19); 37(20); 38(21); 39(22); 40(23). 41(24); 42(25); 43(26); 44(27); 45(28); 46(29); 47(30); 48(31), 49(32); 50(33); 51(34); 52(35); 53(36) 54(37); 55(38); 56(39). 57(40); 58(41); 59(42); 60(43); 61(44); 62(45); 64(46); 65(47) 66(48). 67(49); 68(50); 69(51); 70(53); 74(73); 75(74); 76(76); 79(75); 81(78). Proposed Findings of Fact 23, 63, and 80 are irrelevant. Proposed Findings of Fact 71, 72, 73, 77 and 78 are subordinate to the facts found.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a medical doctor, in his treatment of Patient M.A., failed to keep legible medical records in violation of section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2007); prescribed or administered inappropriate or excessive quantities of controlled substances in violation of section 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes (2007); committed medical malpractice by practicing below the standard of care in violation of section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2007); failed to perform a statutory or legal obligation placed upon a licensed physician in violation of section 458.331(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2007); and violated any provision of chapter 458 or chapter 456, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto in violation of section 458.331(1)(nn), Florida Statutes (2007), as Petitioner alleges in the Third Amended Administrative Complaint; if so, whether (and what) disciplinary measures should be imposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order: Finding that Paul M. Goldberg, M.D., violated sections 458.331(1)(g) and (nn), Florida Statutes, as charged in Counts IV and V of the Complaint; Dismissing Counts I-III of the Complaint; Imposing $20,000 in administrative fines; issuing a reprimand against Dr. Goldberg's medical license; requiring Dr. Goldberg to complete the "Laws and Rules" Course; suspending Dr. Goldberg's medical license until such time as Dr. Goldberg undergoes a "UF CARES" evaluation; and placing Dr. Goldberg's license on probation for three years under indirect supervision with 100 percent chart review of cosmetic surgery patients and 25 percent chart review of all other patients. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), is designated as the state agency responsible for the administration of federal and state Medicaid funds, and is authorized by statute to provide payments for medical services. Respondent, Marvin H. Ledbetter, is a doctor of osteopathy who is enrolled as a general practitioner provider in the Medicaid Program. His professional office is in Ormond Beach, Florida where he is engaged in family practice. Under the Program, Ledbetter is assigned a provider number (48220-0) which is used to bill Medicaid for services rendered to Medicaid recipients. During calendar year 1981, which is the only time period in question, Ledbetter received $42,809 in Medicaid reimbursements from HRS, of which $28,062 related to fees for Medicaid hospital patients. The latter category of fees is at issue. In order to qualify for federal matching Medicaid funds HRS must meet certain federally-imposed requirements, including the establishment of a program integrity section designed to insure that all Medicaid services are medically necessary. If they are not, HRS is obliged to seek recoupment of funds paid to the provider. This proceeding involves an attempt by HRS to recoup certain funds paid to Ledbetter for hospital services. After providing medical services to various hospital patients, Ledbetter completed and sent in the necessary forms to obtain payment. As noted earlier, these payments totaled $28,062 during 1981. Upon receipt of the forms, HRS input the information from the forms into a computer data base, along with similar information from other Medicaid providers throughout the State. This information included, among other things, the number of admissions, number of discharges, amount paid for hospital services and length of stay. The retention of such data is necessary so that possible overpayments may be detected by HRS through the statistical analysis of claims submitted by a group of providers of a given type. Because Ledbetter's total discharges exceeded the average of other family physicians throughout the State, the computer generated a report which flagged Ledbetter for further review and examination. An HRS analyst conducted such a review of Ledbetter's records, and found his average hospital length of stay for patients to be acceptable when compared to the average physician in the State. This report was forwarded to the HRS peer review coordinator who randomly selected thirty of Ledbetter's patients from the computer, and obtained their patient charts (numbering sixty-eight). Such a statistical calculation is authorized by Rule 10C-7.6(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. A medical consultant employed by HRS then reviewed twelve of the sixty-eight charts and recommended the records be sent to a Peer Review Committee (PRC) for its review and recommendation. This committee is authorized by Rule 7C-7.61(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code serves under contract with HRS, and is composed of eight members of the Florida Osteopathic Medical Association. It is their responsibility to review the files of physicians whose Medicaid payments are questioned by HRS's program integrity section. When Ledbetter's records were forwarded to the PRC by HRS, the transmittal letter stated that a "study" of his records had been made, and that said study revealed "overutilization of inpatient hospital services" and "excessive lengths of stay." After a PRC review was conducted in early 1984, the records were returned to HRS with a notation that "mild overutilization" had occurred. According to informal guidelines used by the PRC, this meant that Ledbetter's overutilization fell within the range of 0 percent to 20 percent. HRS accepted these findings but for some reason initially determined that a 40 percent overutilization had occurred, and that Ledbetter was overpaid in 1981 by 40 percent for his hospital services. Finding this amount to be inconsistent with the mild overutilization guidelines, HRS arbitrarily added back two days to each patient's hospital stay, which decreased overutilization to 33.8 percent, or $9,505.06 in overpayments. By proposed agency action issued on May 18, 1984, it billed Ledbetter this amount, thereby precipitating the instant controversy. All of the patients in question were from the lower income category, and most were black. Their home conditions were generally less than desirable, and the ability of the parents to supply good nursing care to ill or sick children was in doubt. At the same time, in 1981 Ledbetter was working an average of 56 hours per week in the emergency room of a local hospital and devoted only minimal time to his family practice. Because of this Ledbetter's number of hospital admissions greatly exceeded the norm when compared to general practitioners who engaged in an office practice. Consequently, he received most of these patients through the emergency room rather than his office and was dealing with patients whose socioeconomic conditions were an important consideration. These factors must be taken into account in analyzing Ledbetter's patient records. HRS does not contend that Ledbetter failed to perform the services for which he was paid--rather, it questions only whether some of the admissions were medically necessary and whether some of the lengths of stay were too long. In this regard, conflicting expert testimony was offered by the parties concerning the amount of overutilization, if any. Expert testimony by two local doctors of osteopathy support a finding that only mild overutilization of admissions and lengths of stay occurred. This is corroborated by HRS's expert (Dr. Smith) and by the testimony of its "live" expert, Dr. Conn, who conceded that lengths of stay were only "a little bit too long." The more persuasive testimony also establishes that while mild overutilization falls within the range of 0 percent to 20 percent, 10 percent is an appropriate median in this proceeding. Using this yardstick, Ledbetter should reimburse HRS for 10 percent for his billings, or $2,806.20.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent repay petitioner $2,086.20 in excess Medicaid payments received for calendar year 1981 claims. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 1985.
Findings Of Fact MCH was constructed circa 1973 as an acute care hospital and before 1980 had 126 medical-surgical beds authorized including eight intensive care beds. MCH is a for-profit hospital owned by Hospital Corporation of America. It is financially able to fund the proposed addition. In 1980 it received a certificate of need (CON) to add 64 medical-surgical beds for a total bed capacity of 190 medical-surgical beds. These beds came on line in January 1982. MCH here proposes to add a 54-bed unit for oncology patients; to add six operating rooms to use primarily for eye, ear, nose and throat surgical procedures on an outpatient basis; and a new eight-bed surgical intensive care unit located on the first floor adjacent to the existing surgery department. Currently, the hospital has two oncologists on staff who use a 16-bed unit dedicated to the treatment of cancer. Space exists for the additional operating room so the net result is an application for an additional 62 beds. The application also included expansion of general stores and maintenance and the addition of a parking structure, which were granted, leaving only the issue of need for the 62 additional beds requested at a cost of $7 million. When constructed MCH had an eight-bed ICU primarily for coronary care patients located on the second floor of the hospital in the opposite wing from the surgery department on the first floor. It has added a four-bed ICU on the fourth floor by converting two semiprivate medical-surgical rooms. The ratio of ICU beds to total beds in 1973 was 8:126 which is nearly identical to the current ratio of 12:190. The evidence was unrebutted that the ICU at MCH is usually full, that on occasion patients have to wait in the emergency room until a less ill patient can be moved from a bed in ICU, and that the more ICU beds are available the more they will be used. This use was attributed to the doctors desiring their patients to be in an ICU and to testimony that current surgical procedures are more sophisticated than formerly and a greater need exists today for a surgery patient to go to an ICU than existed 15 years ago. In its application for a CON (Exhibit 18) MCH's estimated charge for a medical-surgical bed is $100-150 per day and its estimated charge for ICU beds and SICU beds is $350 per day. The primary service area for MCH is Marion County. Petitioner submitted evidence that nearly 20 percent of the cancer patients diagnosed in Marion County in 1981 came from the surrounding counties of Citrus, Lake, Sumter, and Levy. Accordingly, MCH contends that its primary service area for oncology patients should include these counties. Evidence was also submitted that MCH has been certified by medical associations as an approved cancer treatment hospital; that oncology service is a service generally provided in regional hospitals which provide Level III medical treatment; and, therefore, MCH should be considered on a different scale than Level II services. No evidence was presented that any health systems plan ever considered MCH as a regional cancer hospital or established any bed need for cancer patients at MCH. The evidence was also unrebutted that cancer patients at MCH are primarily treated by chemotherapy; that the drugs used in the treatment are extremely toxic, some have a short life span after being mixed and must be used almost immediately; that having a mini-pharmacy in the cancer ward is highly desirable; that special training of nurses is required to safely administer these drugs to patients; that patients develop nausea, ulcers in the mouth and throat, and present special feeding problems, and because of these special feeding problems it is advantageous to have some facilities in the cancer ward to prepare food at odd hours for patients; that cancer is a "personal" disease, patients desire more privacy, and should have private rooms; that an area away from the patient's room where the patient can visit with his or her family and the family can consult with the doctor in some privacy is desirable; that some newer drugs require hospitalization of the patient for treatment with these drugs, but the hospital stay is shorter and the drugs may be used over longer periods of time; and that the patient needs the security that comes from developing a feeling of trust by the patient of the nurses and doctors who are administering to his needs. MCH has no radiation treatment facilities in the hospital. However, the hospital staff has access to a Linear Accelerator which is located in a private physician's office on MCH's campus. Several witnesses testified to the need for additional beds for cancer patients at MCH; that patients have had to wait several days for a vacant bed; some oncology patients have had to be placed in other wards at MCH; and that special treatment and special training for nurses are required for oncology patients. Marion Regional Medical Center (MRMC) is a nonprofit hospital owned by the Marion County Hospital District, a public body established by statutes with taxing powers in Marion County. MRMC is currently expanding its facilities by 80 beds to the authorized 314-bed hospital pursuant to a CON approved in 1981. The $23 million for that project was financed by revenue bonds issued by Marion County Hospital District. Preliminary bids indicate the original project will be under the estimated cost resulting in a $2-3 million savings. If the additional beds here requested are approved and the construction associated therewith can be accomplished concurrently with the present construction, a saving of nearly $1 million can be obtained. MRMC is the only full service hospital in Marion County and provides medical, surgical, obstetrical, pediatric, psychiatric, intensive care, coronary care, and neurological/neurosurgical services. It has the third most active Emergency Room in the state and receives approximately 45 percent of its admissions through this service. MRMC's proposed project calls for the construction of a sixth floor on the hospital, construction of 66 inpatient beds, and the conversion of a 20-bed pediatric unit for use as a labor and delivery suite, a net gain of 46 beds. As initially proposed, this would provide for eight additional pediatric beds, four pediatric intensive care beds, and 34 medical-surgical beds to be used as a pulmonary medicine unit. Before the hearing the request for additional pediatric beds was withdrawn, leaving a request for 34 additional hospital beds and four pediatric intensive care beds, a total of 38 medical-surgical beds, at a cost of $2.8 million. It was stipulated that both MCH and MRMC provide an acceptable quality of care and operate efficiently. The application satisfied the criteria in Section 381.494(6)(c) with the possible exception of need, and need is the only issue in dispute in these proceedings. Both applicants submitted evidence that they accept all patients regardless of their ability to pay; however, MCH is a private for-profit hospital whose bad debt and charity care amounts to two percent of its gross revenues. MRMC's patient load is four percent indigent and bad debts, and charity care amounts to 12 percent of its gross revenues. Exhibit 18 shows MCH patient utilization to be 61 percent Medicare and one percent Medicaid, and MRMC patient utilization to be 51 percent Medicare and five percent Medicaid, in 1981. There is currently "applicable district plan" or "annual implementation" as provided for in Section 381.494(6)(c)1, Florida Statutes (1982). The implementation of this statute has been stayed by rule challenges. The North Central Florida Health Planning Council, Inc. (NCFHPC), was the Health Systems Agency (HSA) for what was formerly known as Health Service Region II which included only Marion County as a district sub-area. Prior to the July 1, 1982, amendment of Florida's CON law, the HSA reviewed applications and made recommendations with written findings of fact to DHRS. The 1982 CON law eliminated HSA, accordingly the NCFHPC no longer exists. The former HSA recommended approval of the applications of both MCH and MRMC; however, the staff of the HSA recommended disapproval of both applications. For the determination of need in these proceedings, a planning horizon of five years is acceptable and was used by all parties. Thus, the need for the requested CON is assessed for the year 1988. At this time the population of Marion County is forecast to be 165,880. The percentage of persons 65 and older in Marion County is increasing in proportion to the remainder of Marion County's population, and this increase will continue through 1988. This "aging" of the population is occurring throughout the United States as people live longer and demographics change with differing birth rates at differing periods. No evidence was submitted that the percentage of people over 65 is greater in Marion County than in other parts of Florida. MCH has 190 authorized medical-surgical beds and MRMC has 244 authorized medical-surgical beds, for a total of 434 such beds authorized in Marion County in two hospitals across the street from each other in Ocala, Florida. With the 1982 amendment to the CON statute the HSA in Marion County ceased to exist and has been replaced by a local health council. Rule challenges have stayed the promulgation of a comprehensive state health plan and the only Health Systems Plan in being for Marion County is the revised 1983 Health Systems Plan (HSP). This plan was approved by the HSA for Marion County in June of 1982 and contains goals, objectives and standards for planning for the health services required in Marion County. Standard 1-1 provides the need for medical-surgical beds within each Level II planning area (Marion County) should be based on the actual 1980 medical-surgical bed need per 1,000 population in this area. Standard 2-1 provides no additional beds should be added to a community's total bed supply until the occupancy rate of medical- surgical beds in the community exceeds 85 percent if more than 200 such beds are available in the community. The generally accepted standard for occupancy rate above which more beds may be needed is 80 percent. However, where beds are concentrated in one area, which is the case in Marion County where 434 medical- surgical beds are authorized, 85 percent occupancy leaves a reasonable surplus of beds to cover most emergencies or unusual situations that would cause the bed availability to be exceeded. The need for medical-surgical beds per 1,000 population (use rate) in Marion County in 1980 was 2.41. The HSP has a goal of 3.5 beds per 1,000 population and an objective of 4.0 beds per 1,000 population by 1987 in Region II. Applying the 1980 use rate to the 1988 forecast population of Marion County results in a need for 400 medical-surgical beds. The Health Systems Plan update for Marion County defines medical- surgical beds as all hospital beds which are not reserved solely for the use of pediatric, obstetrics, or psychiatric patients. At the time the revised Health Systems Plan for Marion County was promulgated, the two hospitals, MRMC and MCH, had been authorized an additional 80 and 65 beds, respectively, and these beds were being placed in service. By prescribing a use rate for 1980 as the standard to be used in considering applications for additional medical-surgical beds in 1983 and for a year or two thereafter, it would be reasonable to conclude the HSA expected the use rate for the years 1981 and 1982 to be influenced by the addition of the recently authorized 144 beds and to not accurately reflect a reliable use rate for planning purposes. MRMC and MCH presented expert witnesses who, by using different modalities, containing different assumptions, arrived at a need for additional beds in Marion County in 1988 ranging from 97 to 200. Most of these modalities used an occupancy rate of 3.5 beds per 1,000 population and 80 percent utilization of beds. All assume increasing usage of medical-surgical beds by the increasing and aging population. In their application MRMC and MCH planned to finance these projects with rate increases of 11 percent per year (to keep even with inflation) and a continuing increase in the number of patients handled at these higher rates. While inflation may again be up to 11 percent or higher, it is generally accepted today that the current inflation rate is five percent or less. More than 50 percent of both MRMC and MCH patients are presently covered by Medicare, which pays 80 percent of the charges generated by these patients. To assume that this situation will not only continue in the face of current federal deficits, but grow to cover the increased use of these facilities predicted in the assumptions used to show increased bed need for 1988, is not necessarily a valid assumption. Evidence was presented that the number of doctors in Marion County has doubled in the last five years. The ratio of doctors to the population of Marion County for 1977-78 and 1982-83 was not presented nor was the percent increase in the number of doctors in the United States over the past five years. Without some basis for comparison, the fact that the number of doctors in a particular community doubled over a five-year period has no relevancy.
