The Issue The issue in this case is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-4.070--including pages 2-2 and 3-3 and Appendices B and C of the Florida Medicaid Provider Handbook, Durable Medical Equipment/Medical Supply Services, which is incorporated in the rule by reference--is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact AHCA’S RULE ON MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR DME/MEDICAL SUPPLIES AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-4.070 "applies to all durable medical equipment and supply providers enrolled in the Medicaid program." It requires the providers to "comply with the Florida Medicaid Durable Medical Equipment and Supply Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook, April 1998, incorporated by reference, and the Florida Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook, HCFA 1500 and EPSDT 221, incorporated by reference in 59G-5.020." (Joint Exhibit 1) The DME Handbook "explains covered services, their limits and who is eligible to receive them." The Billing Handbook "describes how to complete and file claims for reimbursement by Medicaid." (DME Handbook, p. i). DME is "medically necessary equipment that can withstand repeated use, serves a medical purpose, and is appropriate for use in the recipient’s home"; medical supplies are "medically necessary medical or surgical items that are consumable, expendable, disposable or non-durable and appropriate for use in the recipient’s home." (DME Handbook, pp. 1-2). The DME Handbook specifies that "[m]any DME services are available only to recipients under 21 years of age. To determine if a service is available to all recipients or just a specific range of recipients see the DME Fee Schedule in Chapter 3 of this handbook, Appendix B: For All Medicaid Recipients and Appendix C: For Recipients Under Age 21." (DME Handbook, p. 2-2). The DME fee schedule is a table of columns listing procedure codes, a description of the service or procedure associated with the procedure code, maximum reimbursement amounts and other information pertinent to each code. (DME Handbook, pp. 3-3 to 3-7). The DME Handbook states that "[t]he DME/medical supplies fee schedule is divided into 2 sections, Appendix B and C. Appendix B is a listing of covered DME/medical supplies for all Medicaid recipients, regardless of age. Appendix C is a listing of covered DME/medical supplies for Medicaid recipients under 21 years of age." (DME Handbook, p. 3-3). The DME fee schedule includes a column identified as "BR" (an abbreviation for "by report") and a column identified as "PA" (an abbreviation for "prior authorization"). (DME Handbook, p. 3-5). The DME Handbook states that the "BR" designation "identifies a 'non-classified' procedure code that requires a medical review to approve and price a procedure correctly." (DME Handbook, p. 3-5). "Non-classified" procedure codes "allow the provider to request reimbursement from Medicaid when a reimbursable item does not have an established fee identified." (DME Handbook, p. 3-5). The DME Handbook states that the "PA" designation "identifies the procedure codes that require prior authorization before the service is performed." (DME Handbook, p. 3-5). The DME Handbook specifies which DME/medical supply procedure codes listed in Appendices B and C of the DME Fee Schedule require prior authorization. (DME Handbook, p. 2-5, Appendices B and C). The Billing Handbook includes a Prior Authorization Request Form which providers must submit to the Medicaid office in order to obtain prior authorization for DME and medical supplies. The prior authorization form requires submission of a procedure code. (Billing Handbook, pp. 7-8 to 7-13; DME Handbook, p. 3-5). Neither the DME Handbook or the Billing Handbook includes any prior authorization procedure that providers can follow to obtain Medicaid coverage for DME or medical supplies that do not have a procedure code listed in Appendices B or C of the DME Handbook. In Appendix C of the DME Handbook, for Medicaid recipients under age 21, there is a miscellaneous code, "E1399", for durable medical equipment which requires prior authorization. No comparable code exists in Appendix B of the DME Handbook for Medicaid recipients age 21 and older. (DME Handbook, pp. 2-5 and C-14). A Medicaid recipient who needs durable medical equipment or medical supplies will present the request in the form of a prescription or certificate of medical necessity from a physician to a DME provider. The provider then uses the DME Handbook to determine if an item is covered by the Medicaid program. If an adult presents a doctor's prescription for an item of DME which is not listed in Appendix B of the DME Handbook, the provider will most likely decline to provide the services unless other arrangements are made to pay for the services. There is nothing in the DME Handbook which informs providers of any means by which adult Medicaid recipients can request coverage of items not listed in Appendix B. DME providers have not received any memo or directive from AHCA advising how DME providers could request coverage of items for adults not listed in Appendix B. ALTERNATIVES FOR RECIPIENTS NEEDING DME/MEDICAL SUPPLIES NOT LISTED IN THE DME HANDBOOK There are alternatives for Medicaid recipients to obtain DME/medical supplies which are not listed in the DME Handbook. They include the Medicaid Waiver Program, coverage through other Medicaid programs, an "exception authorization" process, and the fair hearing process. The Medicaid Waiver Program Section 1915(c) of the Social Security Act authorizes states to provide Medicaid home and community-based waiver programs. 42 U.S.C. Section 1396n(c). Under Medicaid waiver programs, states can provide services in addition to those authorized under their regular Medicaid program through the Medicaid state plan. Home and community-based waiver programs are targeted towards populations at risk of institutionalization. See 42 U.S.C. Section 1396n(c)(1). The federal Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) has authorized Florida to administer a home and community-based waiver program for persons with developmental disabilities ("DS waiver program"). HCFA places a cap on the number of individuals who may participate in the waiver. The DS waiver program offers specialized medical equipment and supplies. However, before any service can be funded under the DS waiver program, it must be approved by the Developmental Services district office. Whether the services are approved or not is based, in part, on available funding. Both state and federal funding are capped under the DS waiver program. The DS Waiver program Services Directory states on pp. 3-4 that "the waiver endorses the supports already provided by family, friends and neighbors, and discourages the replacement of such natural and free supports with government-funded services[,]" and "[w]hen a service must be purchased, those available under the Medicaid State Plan must be accessed before purchasing services through the waiver." Coverage Through Other Medicaid Programs AHCA administers about 35 different programs within the regular Medicaid program. Some medical equipment is covered by programs other than the DME/Medical Supplies program. Hearing aides are covered by the hearing program; saline used with medical equipment is covered by the pharmacy program; and cochlear implants are covered under the physician services program. However, there was no evidence that any other Medicaid programs covered any of the medical equipment or supplies needed by Bell or Powell. Exception Authorization/Prior Authorization Process The "exception authorization" process is the same as the prior authorization process described in the DME Handbook and Billing Handbook. See Findings 7-12, supra. As found, AHCA’s form for requesting prior authorization requires submission of a procedure code; there is no general DME miscellaneous code listed in the rule for Medicaid recipients over age 21; and there are no instructions included in the DME or Billing Handbook which authorize providers to bill for DME on behalf of adult recipients under code E1399. (DME Handbook, Appendix B). Nonetheless, it is technically possible for AHCA administrators to override the Agency’s computer (by "forcing the age edit") to provide for payment of items for adults which are not listed in Appendix B of the DME Handbook. Although the Florida Legislature has declined AHCA's requests to appropriate funds for DME for adult Medicaid recipients for the past four legislative sessions, AHCA administrators have overridden the computer to get coverage of durable medical equipment and supplies that are not listed in the DME Handbook for three Medicaid recipients. However, this procedure is not described in Rule 59G-4.070. Fair Hearing Process Another alternative for Medicaid recipients who need coverage of DME/medical supplies not included in the DME Handbook is through the fair hearing process. Recipients are informed about their fair hearing rights when they are enrolled in the Medicaid program and also when a prior authorization request is denied. There are no form AHCA notices included in the DME Handbook or Billing Handbook advising recipients about their fair hearing rights when prior authorization for DME is denied. AHCA placed in evidence a form used by AHCA to advise recipients of their fair hearing rights when prior authorization for DME/medical supplies is denied. The form notice is out-of-date. It states that it is from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) and refers to Consultec as the fiscal agent. It is the fiscal agent for AHCA, not HRS, which generates this notice; and Unisys, not Consultec, has been AHCA’s fiscal agent for about the past five years. The form notice states that if individuals want a fair hearing they should write to the Office of Public Assistance, Appeal Hearing, in Jacksonville, Florida. At least one other Appeal Hearing office is located in Tallahassee. If no prior authorization request is made because no procedure code is listed in the DME Handbook, there would be no notice of denial of a prior authorization request. HCFA LETTER HCFA sent a letter to State Medicaid Directors on September 4, 1998, setting out federal Medicaid requirements regarding DME coverage. The HCFA letter of interpretive guidance reminded state Medicaid directors that the mandatory home health services benefit under Medicaid includes medical supplies, equipment, and appliances suitable for use in the home and summarized the applicable federal law. It also stated: An [i.e., DME] ME policy that provides no reasonable and meaningful procedure for requesting items that do not appear on a State's pre-approved list, is inconsistent with the federal law discussed above. In evaluating a request for an item of [D]ME, a State may not use a "Medicaid population as a whole" test, which requires a beneficiary to demonstrate that, absent coverage of the item requested, the needs of "most" Medicaid recipients will not be met. This test, in the [D]ME context, establishes a standard that virtually no individual item of [D]ME can meet. Requiring a beneficiary to meet this test as a criterion for determining whether an item is covered, therefore, fails to provide a meaningful opportunity for seeking modifications of or exceptions to a State's pre-approved list. Finally, the process for seeking modifications or exceptions must be made available to all beneficiaries and may not be limited to sub- classes of the population (e.g., beneficiaries under the age of 21). In light of this interpretation of the applicable statute and regulations, a State will be in compliance with federal Medicaid requirements only if, with respect to an individual applicant’s request for an item of [D]ME, the following conditions are met: The process is timely and employs reasonable and specific criteria by which an individual item of DME will be judged for coverage under the State’s home health services benefit. These criteria must be sufficiently specific to permit a determination of whether an item of [D]ME that does not appear on a State’s pre-approved list has been arbitrarily excluded from coverage based solely on a diagnosis, type of illness, or condition. The State's process and criteria, as well as the State's list of pre- approved items are made available to beneficiaries and the public. Beneficiaries are informed of their right, under 42 C.F.R. part 431 Subpart E, to a fair hearing to determine whether an adverse decision is contrary to the law cited above. PETITIONER WILLARD BELL Willard Bell is a Medicaid recipient who is over age Since 1992, he has been in a Medicaid health maintenance organization (HMO). Bell is an insulin-dependent diabetic and has undergone numerous operations and hospitalizations as a result of his diabetes. In 1996, Mr. Bell's doctor prescribed an insulin pump and supplies. AHCA district personnel did not know how to obtain coverage for Mr. Bell's insulin pump, since it is not covered by the regular Medicaid program for adults. They needed technical guidance on how to do so. In February 1999, after over two years of requests and grievance proceedings, AHCA provided Bell an insulin pump under a settlement agreement with AHCA attorney Gordon Scott. In order to make payment for this insulin pump, AHCA used code E1399--the miscellaneous durable medical equipment code that is designated only for recipients under 21--and "forced the age edit" on the computer. Rule 59G-4.070 also does not provide Medicaid coverage for supplies necessary for the operation of an insulin pump (code E0781 applies to Medicaid recipients under 21 years of age). Bell's HMO now pays for the supplies for the insulin pump; but due to numerous problems with his HMO, Bell wants to switch from his HMO to the regular Medicaid program. Bell did not want to switch until he was assured that he will be able to get his insulin pump supplies through Medicaid. Shortly after obtaining the insulin pump through the Gordon Scott settlement agreement, Bell and his attorney, Robert Bencivenga, requested Medicaid coverage for supplies necessary for the operation of his insulin pump. Bencivenga made several calls to Stephanie Perry, an AHCA employee at the AHCA Jacksonville office; he also faxed Perry a letter on March 15, 1999, requesting confirmation that the Agency would pay for Bell’s pump supplies and indicating some urgency to this request. Bencivenga also left several messages with Gordon Scott. Bencivenga did not receive any response to his fax and never got to speak with Scott. After receiving no response from AHCA, Bencivenga contacted Miriam Harmatz of Florida Legal Services to see what could be done next. Harmatz then wrote to Scott stating that Bell wanted to switch from his HMO to the regular Medicaid program but that he first needed assurances from AHCA that the supplies necessary to continue utilization of the pump would be available from Medicaid. Moses Williams, another attorney for AHCA, wrote Harmatz a letter dated April 7, 1999, suggesting that Bell be patient with his HMO; the letter did not state whether or not AHCA would pay for the pump supplies should Bell leave his HMO. PETITIONER JUSTIN POWELL AND HIS MOTHER BARBARA POWELL Justin Powell is a 21 year-old Medicaid recipient. Justin has multiple severe disabilities, including mental retardation and cerebral palsy. He breathes through a tracheotomy and is tube-fed by means of a feeding pump. Justin’s doctors have prescribed a number of items of specialized medical equipment and supplies for him, including: a tracheotomy mask or collar; inner cannula; enteral feeding supply kit, both pump fed and gravity fed; compressor; and nebulizer. Justin will need this equipment and supplies for the rest of his life. Justin Powell has lived with his parents, Barbara and Phillip Powell, along with his brother, sister-in-law, and their children, for his entire life. Justin's mother is his primary caretaker. Justin is dependent on her for all of his activities of daily living, as well as for administering various health care treatments, including breathing treatments. Until Justin turned 21, Medicaid provided him coverage for the following equipment and supplies he needs in order to breathe and eat: a tracheotomy mask or collar (code A4621); tracheostomy inner cannula (code A4623); enteral feeding supply kit, either pump fed or gravity fed (code B 4035, B 4036); nebulizer (code E 0575); and a compressor (code E 0570) that powers the nebulizer. (DME Handbook, Appendix B). In order to obtain necessary equipment and supplies, Mrs. Powell simply had to contact Lincare, a DME provider. If any of the equipment Justin needed broke down, Medicaid provided for immediate replacement. When Justin turned 21, Lincare declined to provide further coverage for the DME and supplies because the Rule does not provide Medicaid coverage for Medicaid recipients 21 or older. In response to the information from Lincare, Barbara Powell made numerous calls to AHCA officials to request Medicaid coverage for the items. Eventually she was directed to the DS Waiver Program, which assigned Justin to DS Waiver Support Coordinator Rhonda Allen in July 1998. When Mrs. Powell asked Allen about obtaining durable medical equipment and supplies through the DS Waiver Program, she was told that Allen has to submit requests to Developmental Services, which refers it to a budget committee. Allen then waits for a decision from the budget committee as to whether the item requested will be funded or not. Just because the support coordinator requests an item does not necessarily mean it will get funded. The support coordinator does not make the decision as to whether or not a requested item is funded by the DS waiver. Therefore, Allen could not say whether or not additional items of durable medical equipment and supplies for Justin Powell would be approved for coverage under the DS Waiver program if she were to request them. The DS waiver provider has no role in determining what items get funded under the DS Waiver program. Allen and Barbara Powell discussed Justin Powell’s need for a G-tube, a trach, diapers, and the trach mask. Since the family was paying for a trach mask and a doctor was donating a G- tube, the DS waiver program would not cover these items. If there are resources in the community that will pay for items, the waiver program will not provide coverage. The only supplies funded through the DS waiver to date have been Justin's feeding bags. The only piece of equipment funded through the waiver to date is Justin's suction machine. Over the past year, Allen advised Barbara Powell that the DS waiver program could not cover all of the medical equipment and supplies Justin's needs because funds were low and the DS waiver program was waiting for additional funding. If some of Justin’s equipment ceases to operate, Barbara Powell will have to take Justin to the hospital while she waits for a decision from the DS Waiver program as to whether it will fund replacement equipment. Justin’s only income is $500 per month SSI. Barbara Powell now spends family money to purchase DME and supplies for Justin which are no longer covered by Medicaid. The Powells are re-using some equipment and supplies that should be replaced if money were no object. Due at least in part to the cost of providing Justin's equipment and supplies since he turned 21, the Powell family is under financial stress. Currently, the family is behind in its electricity bill. There was no evidence that AHCA gave the Powells specific written notice after Justin turned 21 that they could pursue a fair hearing to contest the termination of coverage of DME and medical supplies under the regular Medicaid program.
Conclusions THE PARTIES resolved all disputed issues and executed a Settlement Agreement. The parties are directed to comply with the terms of the attached settlement agreement. Based on the foregoing, this file is CLOSED. ah DONE and ORDERED on this the QRH day of (eles , 2014, in Tallahassee, Florida. U- Pp IZABETH D Le fo Agency for Health Care Administration 1 AHCA vs. Boca Delray Renal Associates, Inc., C.1. 12-2163-000 Final Order Filed February 26, 2014 1:28 PM Division of Administrative Hearings A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Katharine B. Heyward Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Office of the General Counsel (Interoffice Mail) Vanessa A. Reynolds, Esquire Broad and Cassel One Financial Plaza, Suite 2700 Post Office Box 14010 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 (U.S. Mail) Richard Zenuch, Bureau Chief, Medicaid Program Integrity Finance and Accounting Health Quality Assurance Florida Department of Health 2 AHCA vs. Boca Delray Renal Associates, Inc., C.I. 12-2163-000 Final Order CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a truc and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to the above named addressees by U.S. Mail or other designated method on this the / day of 7 ruery , 2014. 010) Agency Clerk State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 412-3630/FAX (850) 921-0158 3 AHCA vs. Boca Delray Renal Associates, Inc., C.I. 12-2163-000 Final Order STATE OF FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Petitioner, CASE NO.: 12-002585MPI PROVIDER NO.: 212210300 vs. C.J. NO.: 12-2163-000 NPI NO.: 1528047909 LICENSE NO.: ME39337 BOCA DELRAY RENAL ASSOCIATES, INC., Respondent. / oo SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Petitioner, the STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, (*AHCA” or “Agency”), and Respondent, BOCA DELRAY RENAL ASSOCIATES, INC., (“PROVIDER”), by and through the undersigned, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. The parties enter into this agreement for the purpose of memorializing the resolution of this matter. 2. PROVIDER is a Medicaid provider in the State of Florida, provider number 212210300, and was a provider during the audit period. 3. In its Final Audit Report, dated June 18, 2012, the Agency notified PROVIDER that a review of Medicaid claims performed by the Agency’s Office of the Inspector General, Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity (“MPI”), indicated that certain claims, in whole or in part, were inappropriately paid by Medicaid. The Agency sought repayment of this overpayment, in the amount of forty-six thousand, two hundred dollars and eighty-eight cents ($46,200.88). Additionally, the Agency applied sanctions in accordance with Sections 409.913(15), (16), and Agency for Health Care Adina v Ooce Delay Renal Associates, Inc. Settlement Agreement Page 1 of 6 (17), Florida Statutes, and Rule 59G-9.070(7), Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, the Agency assessed the following sanctions against PROVIDER: a fine in the amount of nine thousand, two hundred forty dollars and eighteen cents ($9,240.18) for violation(s) of Rule 59G- 9,070(7)(e), Florida Administrative Code; and costs in the amount of forty-seven dollars and sixteen cents ($47.16). The total amount due was fifty-five thousand, four hundred eighty-eight dollars and twenty-two cents ($55,488.22). 4, In response to the Final Audit Report dated June 18, 2012, PROVIDER filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing. Subsequently, the PROVIDER submitted information which was reviewed but did not reduce the overpayment. 5. In order to resolve this matter without further administrative proceedings, PROVIDER and AHCA agree as follows: (1.) | AHCA agrees to accept the payment set forth herein in settlement of the overpayment, fine, and costs arising from the above-referenced audit. (2.) PROVIDER agrees to pay AHCA the sum of fifty-five thousand, four hundred eighty-eight dollars and twenty-two cents ($55,488.22). 3.) Asof October 23, 2013, AHCA has recouped a total of forty-six thousand, two hundred dollars and eighty-eight cents ($46,200.88). The remaining balance is nine thousand, two hundred eighty-seven dollars and thirty-four cents ($9,287.34). The outstanding balance accrues at 10% interest per year. Within thirty (30) days of entry of the Final Order, PROVIDER will make a lump sum payment of the remaining balance in the amount of nine thousand, two hundred eighty-seven dollars and thirty-four cents ($9,287.34). Should the provider’s Agency for Health Care Administration v. Boca Delray Renal Associates, Inc. (C. | No.: 12-2163-000) Settlement Agreement Page 2 of 6 enrollment with Medicaid be terminated, the full amount owed will be due within 30 days of termination. (4.) PROVIDER and AHCA agree that full payment, as set forth above, resolves and settles this case completely and releases both parties from any administrative or civil liabilities arising from the findings relating to the claims determined to have been overpaid as referenced in audit C.I. 12-2163-000. (5.) PROVIDER agrees that it shall not re-bill the Medicaid Program in any manner for claims that were not covered by Medicaid, which are the subject of the review in this case. 6. Payment shall be made to: AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION Medicaid Accounts Receivable 27277 Mahan Drive, Mail Station #14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 7. PROVIDER agrees that failure to pay any monies due and owing under the terms of this Agreement shall constitute PROVIDER’S authorization for the Agency, without further notice, to withhold the total remaining amount due under the terms of this agreement from any monies due and owing to PROVIDER for any Medicaid claims. 8. AHCA reserves the right to enforce this Agreement under the laws of the State of Florida, the Rules of the Medicaid Program, and all other applicable rules and regulations. 9. This settlement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing or error by either party with respect to this case or any other matter. 10. The signatories to this Agreement, acting in a representative capacity, represent that they are duly authorized to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the respective parties. Agency for Heatth Care Administration v. Boca Delray Renal Associates, inc. {C. |. No.: 12-2163-000} Settlement Agreement Page 3 of 6 11. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the provisions of the laws of Florida. Venue for any action arising from this Agreement shall be in Leon County, Florida. 12. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between PROVIDER and AHCA, including anyone acting for, associated with or employed by them, concerning all matters and supersedes any prior discussions, agreements or understandings; there are no promises, representations or agreements between PROVIDER and AHCA other than as set forth herein. No modification or waiver of any provision shall be valid unless a written amendment to the Agreement is completed and properly executed by the parties. 13. This is an Agreement of Settlement and Compromise, made in recognition that the parties may have different or incorrect understandings, information and contentions as to facts and law, and with each party compromising and settling any potential correctness or incorrectness of its understandings, information and contentions as to facts and law, so that no misunderstanding or misinformation shall be a ground for rescission hereof. 14. PROVIDER expressly waives in this matter its right to any hearing pursuant to sections 120.569 or 120.57, Florida Statutes, the making of findings of fact and conclusions of law by the Agency, and all further and other proceedings to which it may be entitled by law or rules of the Agency regarding this proceeding and any and all issues raised herein. PROVIDER further agrees that it shall not challenge or contest any Final Order entered in this matter which is consistent with the terms of this settlement agreement in any forum now or in the future available to it, including the right to any administrative proceeding, circuit or federal court action or any appeal. 15. | PROVIDER does hereby discharge the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, and its agents, representatives, and attorneys of and from all claims, demands, Agency for Health Cara Administration v. Boca Delray Renal Associates, inc. {C. |. No.: 12-2163-000) Settlement Agreement Page 4 of 6 actions, causes of action, suits, damages, losses and expenses, of any and every nature whatsoever, arising out of or in any way related to this matter, AHCA’s actions herein, including, but not limited to, any claims that were or may be asserted in any federal or state court or administrative forum, including any claims arising out of this agreement. 16. The parties agree to bear their own attorney’s fees and costs, if any. This does not include the above listed costs of the investigation and audit which PROVIDER agrees to pay. 17. This Agreement is and shall be deemed jointly drafted and written by all parties to it and shall not be construed or interpreted against the party originating or preparing it. 18. To the extent that any provision of this Agreement is prohibited by law for any reason, such provision shall be effective to the extent not so prohibited, and such prohibition shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement. 19. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding on each party’s successors, assigns, heirs, administrators, representatives and trustees. 20. All times stated herein are of the essence of this Agreement. 21. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect upon execution by the respective parties in counterpart. BOCA DELRAY RENAL ASSOCIATES, INC., , ce Dated: /) /Y , 2013 (Signed) av: Faau ces Kenusé VP (Print Name and Title) Agency for Health Care Administration v. Boca Delray Renal Associates, Inc. {C. 1. No.: 12-2163-000) Settlement Agraement Page 5 of 6 AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. 3, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, FL 32308-5403 Dated: U : 2046 Stuaé F. Williams, Esquire General Counsel af 7 44 rads (li ated: | A2—. 2017 im Kellum, Esquire Chief Medicaid Counsel oo ~ j cof NMA 4 wre Yow Dated: A | H org! Katharine B. Heyward, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration v. Boca Delray Renal Associates, Inc. (C. L.No.; 12-2163-000) Settlement Agreement Page 6 of 6 proad and Cassel /19/2012 4:18 PAGE 7/11 RightFax Juli@1212;90a © KRAUSE 5610940872 p2 RICK SCOTT ea ELIZABETH OUDEK GOVERNOR Setter Health Cure far alt Ploridiens SECRETARY MAIL 4 1 June 18, 2012 Provider No: 212210300 NPINo: 1528047909 License No.: MB39337 BOCA DELRAY RENAL ASSOC 1905 CLINT MOORE RD, SUITE 306 BOCA RATON, FL 33496 tu Reply Refer to FINAL AUDIT REPORT C.L: No, 12-2163-000 Dear Provider: The Agency for Hesith Care Administration (Agetioy), Office of Inspector General, Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity, has comploted a review of claims for Medicald reimbursement for dates of service during the perlod April 1, 2609 through March 31, 2010, A preliminary audit repost dated May 24, 2022 waa sent to you indicating that we had determined you. were overpaid $46,200.88. Since no. documentation was produced to refute these billings, wll the claims are considered overpayments, We have determined that you were overpaid $46,200.88 for services that in whole or in part are not covered by Medicaid, A fine of $9,240.18 has been applied, The cost assessed for this audit is $47.16. The total amount duc is $55,488.22, Be advised of the following: (1) In accordance with Sections 409.913(15), (16), and (17), Florida Statutes (F.S.), end Rule $9G-9.070, Florida Administeative Code (F.A.C.), the Agency shall apply sanctions for violations of federal and state laws, including Medicaid policy. ‘This letter shall setve as _ hotles of the following sanction(s): A fine of $9,240.18 for violation(s) of Rule Section 59G-9,076(7) (e), F.A.C. (2) Pursuant to Section 409,913(23) (a), F.S., the Agency is entitled to recover all investigative, legal, and expert witness costs. This review and the determination of overpayment were made in aovordance with the provisions of Section 409.913, F.S. In determining the appropriateness of Medicaid payment pursuant to Medicaid policy, the Medicaid program utilizes progerure codes, despriptions, policies, limitations end re ew 6, a slusti Lo. 2727 Muten Drive, M88 6 vat ee - Visit ARCA online at Tallohasseo, Florida $2308 ns Dttp;/fence.myfinride.com broad and Cassel 7/19/2012 4:18 PAGE 8/11 RightFax Jul 19 12.12:302 KRAUSE §619940872 p.3 Page 2 requirements found in the Medicaid provider handbooks and Section 409.913, F.S, In applying for Medicaid reimbursement, providers are required to follow the guidelines set forth in the applicable rules and Medicaid fes achedules, as prommuigated in the Medicaid policy handbooks, billing bulletins, and the Medicaid provider agreement. Medicaid cannot pay for services that do not meet these guidelines. Below is a discuasion of the particular guidelines related to the review of your claims, and an explanation of why these claims do not meet Medicaid requirements, The audit claims detail Is included, listing the claims that are affected by this determination. REVIEW DETERMINATIONS) 1, Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook, dated October 2003, page 1-22 and January 2007, pago 1-26, both state: . HMO Caverage When a provider verifies 8 reciplent’s sligibilty for Medicald, he must also varity, ‘whethar the recipient ig emoited in an HMO. if a recipiant is an HMO member, the provider must esak authorization from the HMO in whioh tha recipient ie currently entotied priar ta providing services, unless ft is an emergency. W the raniplent le In an HMO, Medicald will not pay @ provider for any HiiC- covered services. Providers rust seek authorization and reimbursement from the HMC for services the HMO covers for its members. Note: See Chepler 3 in this handbook for information on verliying réciplent | eligibility and HMO enroliment. 2. Plorida Medicaid Provider General Handbook, dated July 2008, page 1-28. states: HMO Coverage When a provider varios 4 recipient's eligibility for Medicaid, he must also veuty whether the recipient ls enrolled in an HMO. Hf a recipient ip a HMO member, the provider must auak authorization from the HMO in which the recipients currently enrolled prier to providing services covered by the HMO, untess q fe an emergency. the recent in enHino, Medicaid will not pay a provider for any HMO» covered services. Providers must seek sulhorization and reimbursement the HIMG for ecrvices the HMO covers for ts members. Note: See Chapter 3.In thie handbook for information on ns verifying faciplent eligibility and HMO srvoliment Broad and Cassel dul 19 12 12:30a KRAUSE Page 3 7/19/2012 4:18 PAGE 9/11 RightFax 6619840672 pa 3. Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook, dated July 2004, page 1-23 states: HMO Covered Services ‘The services provided under contrac! with each HMO ere negotiated with ant HMO conitecior, However, every HMO pian mvat include the following tuasle serviced up bo the limits reguirad by fae-for-sorvica iedlicaid: © Chg Hoatth Check-lip thentel health services (only in Areas 4 and 6) Dintysis trasiment in freestanding centers Durehla medical equipment and medical suppiles Family planring services Ing sarvioas Horne health services Hosplel vervoee (inpatient oisipatisnt and emergency services) ‘Laborstery satviogn, Including independent laboratory warvioes Prescribed drag servings Physlolun services (as desartbad below! Nena rect tpetadonte mentoemet {onty ih Arnas 1 and 8) 4, Fioride Modionid Provider Genoral Handbook, dated January 2007, page 1-27 and July 2008, page 1-29 both state: HMO Covered Services ‘The servicas provided.under contract wa each HMO are negotiated with each HMO contractor. Howaver, waved by ‘eeloramrvee must Inchide the folowing basic services up to the linits require s Medicald: Pr a ee Child Health Checked ot Conny nae eth sandoas : | Dialyeis treatment in feestanding centers Durable medical equipment and medica! euppitas Farnlly ptarming s services Hearing services Home health services - Hospital services (Inpatient, outpatient and emergency services) Laboratory services, Inckiding independent jaboratory services earvices Presatbed drug Physician services (as doseitbed below) . Manta! health targeted case management H broad and Vassel U/19/Z012Z 4:18 PAGE 10/11 RightFax Jul 19 42 12:31 KRAUSE 6819940672 pb Page 4 5. Florida Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook , CMS-1500, dated Ootober 2003, page 1- 8, February 2006, page 1-8, and July 2008, page 1-10 all state: Bafore Completing Before Ming out the clan form, answer the following questions: Was the raciplant eligibie for Medicald on the date of service? Has tha recipient's eligiolity been vortied? Vive edPane or iM autharzation obtained, t applicable? ike service covered by Medicaid’? Was service authorization on caeee F in tue and a response received for aii tha reaivlent’s other « =Was the procedure within the service limitations’ J Ooeg thie oiaim require any f medical “ioouentaon or attachment? { Hall of he shove intenmetion is no} avakatte, review the Instruotions tn th handbaok. Hite repens tre sor, eis auwiae Yu fi out the claim form following the step-by-step {natructions for each item Medicaid fee-for-service payments have been identified for recipients thar were currently enrolled in Medicaid managed care at the time of the service. These services were covered by the managed care plan. Medicaid providers must verify recipient eligibility, including enrollment in managed care, prior 4 providing services to 8 reciplent unless it is an emergency. This Medicatd provider requirement can be referenced in the Florida Medicaid Provider Genoral Handbook. The resulting Medicaid fee-for- service reimbursements are considered overpayments, If you are eurrently involved in a bankruptey, you should notify your attorney immediatly ond provide acopy of this letter for them, Please advise your athorney thet we need the following information. immediately:. (1) the date of filing of the bankruptcy petition; (2) the case number; (3) the court nams and the division in which the potition was filed (e.g., Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division); and, (4) the name, address, and telephone number ‘your attorney. If you are not in bankruptcy and you concur with our findings, remit by certiiied check the total amount reflected on page one, paragraph one, of this lefter which inolndes the overpayment amount es well as any fines imposed and assessed costs. The check must be payabis to the Florida Agency for Health Care Adminbtration. Questions regarding procedures for submitting payment should be directed to Medicaid Accounts Receivable, (850) 412-3901, To ensure proper credit, be certain you legibly record on your check your Medicaid provider mnsner and the C1 summer listed on the first page of this audit report, Please mail paymentto: Medicaid Accounts Receivable - MS # 14 Agenoy for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Bldg. 2, 0 Tallahassee, FL, S50” Siea0t Pursuant to section 409. 913(25)(d), F.S., the s Agency may collect money owed by ail means allowable . by law, including, but not limited to, exercising the option to collect money from Medicare that is broaq and Vassel 7/19/Z012 4:18 PAGE 11/11 RightFax dul 19 12 12:31a KRAUSE 6619840672 pé Page 5 payable to the provider. Pursuant to section 409,913(27), F.S., if within 30 days following this notice you have not either repaid the alleged overpayment amount or ‘entered into a satisfactory repayment agreement with the Agency, your Medicaid rolmbursoments will be withheld; they will continue to be withheld, even during the pendency of an administrative hearing, untl! such time as ths overpayment amount is satisfied. Pursuant to section 409,913(30), F.S., the Agency shall terminate your participation in the Medicaid program if you fail to repay an overpayment ot enter into a satisfactory repayment agreement with the Agency, within 35 days after the date of'a final order which is no longer subject to durther appeal. Pursuant to sections 409.913(15)(q) and 409.913(25)(c), F.S., a provider that does not adhere to the terms of'a repayment agreement is subject to tennination from the Medicaid program. Finally, failure to comply with all sanctions applied or due dates may result in additional sanctions being, imposed, Yow have the right to request a formal or informal hearing pursuant to Section 120,569, F.S. Ifa request for a formal hearing is made, the petition must be made in compliance with Section 28-106.201, F.A.C. and mediation may be available, Lf a request for an informal hearing is made, the petition must be raade in compliance with mule Ssotion 28-106,301, P.A.C. Additionally, you-are hereby informed that if request for a heating is made, the petition must be received by the Agency within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of this letter, For more information regarding your hearing and mediation rights, Pleane see the attached Notice of Administrative Hearing and Mediation Rights. Any questions you may have about this matter should be directed to: Shert Creel, Auditor, Agency far Health Care Adwlnistration, Office of Inspector General, Medicaid Program Integrity, 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop ¥6, Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403, telephone (680) 412- 4008, favalmlle (850) 410-1972, or by email at Shor’.Cract@ahea.myBorids.com : bbe ee Program Administrator Office of Inspector General Medicaid Program Integrity PRISC() Enolosure(s) Copies furnished to: Finanos & Accounting (lnteroffice mail} Department of Health (DOH) (E-mail) ode sgt rs se ee APNE OE BOW Se same Pediix. us arbi S AbI2 4bOb 344) we od Sender's Copy {oi mememene ea me WaT io eet, VSOA ~|AGOn le Cpeeinnmoempe 19 psmaas omen ay 5 Shor; ~~ Sepeetee Ota” OB al ine? Sheri Cree! row $0 YO 4b eon Berson ain BATU seaiereacty er ; oe . elEx Envelope cae nat evable,Marivum cig Ose tend te _ STometfoeatyas. any __ AC et uy Tox > Health Care Admin ab own! Prokane on 5s aa Sa Mahan“. Bldg 2s Mea aie Omri: ORE. _ , E , Packegl w 1a lahaseee. sro Ed ap BaBOR- Sto wee Cl Fedtepare 1 frtex feat Ered wean Looe (our Internal Biligg Reforence 6 ; (O30) 80 80 : 6 SpeclalHanding = ms Foe arn aSevuna — oe Comrumewen "ry samt una a a a a . can bene eat aon pe “rae ‘om , JN = BOCA DELRAY RENAL ASSOC — oo Be Bim a Peon in 1905 CLINT MOORE RD., SUITE 306 T Payment Biv wmansumnne seven BOCA RATON, FL 33496 ei Sandee ED accpit Ll taro oy crthcoa’ woes C.L# 12-2163-000/FAR/SC/LS} CR, Chev CTimerr Conte! (cana pvr ~~ Lede BR ye __. State we ‘Total Packages Tota Weight Yotal Declared Valuer - a. $ a "tienes Ge re Stag ach eegaunte 8 Regidentlal Dellvary Signature Options — kroucocuimesigarrs, crack vectorineect. oS Oe Beer. Gap Packt ay bate nays chive ederate anes or order, Sehoenter re Ri Blowretinnee ‘Bev Onle {GP ant 1581011902006 Fedo PRINTED INGSA SRY OBS cui’ Sermosse | store FedEx. Detailed Results _ i Tracking no.! 889246063441 Select time format: 42H 6 Delivered Delivered Signed-for by: LAURA ‘Shipment Dates Dastination Ship date “Gui'z?; Boig ren Signature Peet af Datway™ Delivery date Jin * Shipment Options "Hold at Fedx Location a Hold at FedEx Lopation service ig not avaliable for this shipment. -Shinmen Facts _ Service type FedEx 2Day Envelo Oelivered to ReceptionisvFront Desk Reference 68103010000 Shipment Travel History” Select time zdne: Local Stan Tinie All shipment travel aotivity Is displayed in tocel time for the location cDetetine——SSCAVy SSC Dt Jun, 212 740AM____‘AlWoeal Fedixtadity __BOGARATONFL——— “Jun 28, 2012 631 AM___Aldeatinalon aoriTedily ____-FORTLAUDERDALE, FL “Sin 28,2012 300AM ‘Departed Fedextocation ___WEMPHIS,INSSSS dun 28, 2012 2:27PM tint transit iMEMPHIS, TN ¢ dun 28, 2012 6:50 AM. “Amtived at FedEx location “MEMPHIS, TN | TALLAHASSEE, FL fun 27, 2012 615 PM ‘Left FedEx origin facility : . SisenereseenseunntaeineeneneeeneeeeeeeeneneneeeneeeeeneneenmnenenennnmmeEnEnEnenneenredd http://www. fedex.com/Tracking/Detail ?trackNum=86924 6063441 &fic_start_url=&backTo=&totalPie... 7/16/2012
Findings Of Fact The PROVIDER received the Final Audit Report that gave notice of PROVIDER'S right to an administrative hearing regarding the alleged Medicaid overpayment. The PROVIDER filed a petition requesting an administrative hearing, and then caused that petition to be WITHDRAWN and the administrative hearing case to be CLOSED. PROVIDER chose not to dispute the facts set forth in the Final Audit Report dated August 15, 2013. The facts alleged in the FAR are hereby deemed admitted, including the total amount of $14,569.69, which includes a fine sanction of $2,419.26. The Agency hereby adopts the facts as set forth in the FAR including the amount of $14,569.69 which is now due and owing, from PROVIDER to the Agency.
Conclusions THIS CAUSE came before me for issuance of a Final Order on a Final Audit Report (“FAR”) dated August 15, 2013 (C.1. No. 13-1386-000). By the Final Audit Report, the Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA” or “Agency”), informed the Respondent, Amwill Assisted Living, Inc., (hereinafter “PROVIDER’), that the Agency was seeking to recover Medicaid overpayments in the amount of $12,096.28, and impose a fine sanction of $2,419.26 pursuant to Sections 409.913(15), (16), and (17), Florida Statutes, and Rule 59G- 9.070(7)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and costs of $54.15 for a total amount of $14,569.69. The Final Audit Report provided full disclosure and notice to the PROVIDER of procedures for requesting an administrative hearing to contest the alleged overpayment. The PROVIDER filed a petition with the Agency requesting a formal administrative hearing on or about September 5, 2013. The Agency forwarded PROVIDER'S hearing request to the Division of Administrative Hearings (Division) for a formal administrative hearing. The Division scheduled a formal hearing for November 22, 2013. On November 12, 2013, the PROVIDER filed a Motion with the Administrative Law Judge, requesting AHCA vs. Amwill Assisted Living, Inc. (AHCA C.I, No.: 13-1386-000) Final Order Page 1 of 4 Filed January 2, 2014 10:59 AM Division of Administrative Hearings withdrawal of their Petition for Formal Hearing, and the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Closing File on November 12, 2013, relinquishing jurisdiction of the case to the Agency.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in sanctionable conduct in violation of Medicaid laws, as alleged in the April 9, 2012, sanction letters the Agency for Health Care Administration (ACHA) sent to Respondent in the above-styled cases, and, if so, what sanction(s) should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency charged with administering and overseeing the Medicaid program in Florida. Housed within AHCA is the Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity (MPI). Among MPI's responsibilities is to conduct audits and investigations to ensure that the state's Medicaid providers are in compliance with programmatic requirements. At all times material to the instant cases, Respondent was enrolled in the Florida Medicaid program under two separate provider numbers (Provider No. 679849796, as a provider of Developmental Disabilities Home and Community-Based Medicaid Waiver services, and Provider No. 142150600, as a provider of assistive care services) and subject to the terms of Medicaid Provider Agreements,3/ which contained the following provisions, among others: (5) Provider Responsibilities: The Medicaid provider shall: * * * (b) Keep, maintain, and make available in a systematic and orderly manner all medical and Medicaid-related records as AHCA requires for a period of at least five (5) years. * * * (d) Send, at the provider's expense, legible copies of all Medicaid-related information to authorized state and federal employees, including their agents. The provider shall give state and federal employees access to all Medicaid patient records and to other information that cannot be separated from Medicaid-related records; and, in connection with Provider No. 679849796, it was also subject to the terms of a Medicaid Waiver Services Agreement with the Florida Agency for Persons with Disabilities (APD),4/ in which it had agreed, among other things, to do the following: To permit persons duly authorized by APD, the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), or representatives of either, to monitor, audit, inspect, and investigate any recipient records, payroll and expenditure records, (including electronic storage media), papers, documents, facilities, goods and services of the Provider, which are relevant to this Agreement . . . . * * * Upon demand, and at no additional cost to the APD, AHCA, or their authorized representatives, the Provider will facilitate the duplication and transfer of any records or documents (including electronic storage media), during the required retention period . . . . At all times material to DOAH Case No. 12-1664MPI Respondent, as an enrolled Medicaid provider of Developmental Disabilities Home and Community-Based Medicaid Waiver services, was bound by the following provisions of the Developmental Disabilities Waiver Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook dealing with employee training and recordkeeping requirements, which handbook provisions were incorporated by reference (along with the other provisions of the handbook) in Florida Administrative Code 59G-13.083: Companion Provider Requirements * * * Training Requirements Proof of training in the areas of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), HIV/AIDS and infection control is required within 30 days of initially providing companion services. Proof of annual or required updated training shall be maintained on file for review. The provider is responsible for all training requirements outlined in the Core Assurances. Note: Refer to the Core Assurances in Appendix A for the provider training requirements. . . . * * * Appendix A: Core Assurances for Providers of Developmental Disabilities Home and Community-Based Waiver Services Program * * * 2.1 Required Training The provider and its employees will ensure they receive the specific training required to successfully serve each recipient including the following topics: * * * H. All direct service providers hired after 90 days from the effective date of this rule are required to complete the Agency for Persons with Disabilities developed Zero Tolerance Training course prior to rendering direct care services (as a pre-service training activity). Said training may only be completed via APD's web-based instruction or classroom-led instruction (using APD's approved classroom curriculum presented either by APD staff or an individual who has been trained and approved by APD to conduct such classroom trainings). In addition, all direct service providers shall be required to complete the APD developed Zero Tolerance training course at least once every three years. The provider shall maintain on file for review, adequate and complete documentation to verify its participation, and the participation of its employees, in the required training sessions. The documentation for the above listed training shall, at a minimum, include the training topic(s), length of training session, date and location of training, name and signature of trainer, name and signature of person(s) in attendance. Proof of training shall be on file and available for monitoring and review. At all times material to DOAH Case No. 12-1841MPI, Respondent, as an enrolled Medicaid provider of assistive care services, was bound by the following provisions of the Assistive Care Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook dealing with health assessments, which handbook provisions were incorporated by reference (along with the other provisions of the handbook) in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-4.025: Recipients receiving Assistive Care Services must have a complete assessment at least annually by a physician or other licensed practitioner of the healing arts (Physician Assistant, Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner, Registered Nurse) or sooner if a significant change in the recipient's condition occurs (see below for a definition of a significant change). An annual assessment must be completed no more than one year plus fifteen days after the last assessment. An assessment triggered by a significant change must be completed no more than fifteen days after the significant change. -The assessment for a resident of a ALF or AFCH must be completed by a physician or other licensed practitioner of the healing arts (Physician Assistant, Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner, Registered Nurse) acting within the scope of practice under state law, physician assistant or advanced registered practitioner. -The assessment for a resident of a RTF must be completed by a physician or licensed mental health professional. The assessment must document the need for at least two of the four ACS components. The assessment for ALF residents must be recorded on the Resident Health Assessment for Assisted Living Facilities, AHCA Form 1823. At all times material to both DOAH Case No. 12-1664MPI and DOAH Case No. 12-1841MPI, Respondent was also bound by the following provisions of the Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook, which were incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-5.020 and applied to all enrolled Medicaid providers, including providers of Developmental Disabilities Home and Community-Based Medicaid Waiver services and providers of assistive care services: Record Keeping Requirement Medicaid requires that the provider retain all business records as defined in 59G- 1.010(30) F.A.C., medical-related records as defined in 59G-1.010(154) F.A.C., and medical records as defined in 59G-1.010(160) F.A.C. on all services provided to a Medicaid recipient.[5/] Records can be kept on paper, magnetic material, film, or other media including electronic storage, except as otherwise required by law or Medicaid requirements. In order to qualify as a basis for reimbursement, the records must be signed and dated at the time of service, or otherwise attested to as appropriate to the media. Rubber stamped signatures must be initialed. The records must be accessible, legible and comprehensible. * * * Record Retention Records must be retained for a period of at least five years from the date of service. * * * Right to Review Records Authorized state and federal agencies and their authorized representatives may audit or examine a provider's or facility's records. This examination includes all records that the agency finds necessary to determine whether Medicaid payment amounts were or are due. This requirement applies to the provider's records and records for which the provider is the custodian. The provider must give authorized state and federal agencies and their authorized representatives access to all Medicaid patient records and to other information that cannot be separated from Medicaid- related records. The provider must send, at his expense, legible copies of all Medicaid-related information to the authorized state and federal agencies and their authorized representatives upon request of AHCA. At the time of the request, all records must be provided regardless of the media format on which the original records are retained by the provider. All medical records must be reproduced onto paper copies. * * * Incomplete Records Providers who are not in compliance with the Medicaid documentation and record retention policies described in this chapter may be subject to administrative sanctions and recoupment of Medicaid payments. Medicaid payments for services that lack required documentation or appropriate signatures will be recouped. Note: See Chapter 5 in this handbook for information on administrative sanctions and Medicaid payment recoupment The foregoing contractual and handbook provisions supplemented section 409.913(9), Florida Statutes, which then provided (as it still does) as follows: A Medicaid provider shall retain medical, professional, financial, and business records pertaining to services and goods furnished to a Medicaid recipient and billed to Medicaid for a period of 5 years after the date of furnishing such services or goods. The agency may investigate, review, or analyze such records, which must be made available during normal business hours. However, 24-hour notice must be provided if patient treatment would be disrupted. The provider is responsible for furnishing to the agency, and keeping the agency informed of the location of, the provider's Medicaid- related records. The authority of the agency to obtain Medicaid-related records from a provider is neither curtailed nor limited during a period of litigation between the agency and the provider. On or about December 6, 2011, MPI investigators visited Respondent's facility to review Respondent's Medicaid-related records, but left before completing their review. Approximately a month later, MPI sent Respondent a letter, dated January 5, 2012, concerning claims that Respondent had filed under its Provider No. 679849796 as a provider of Developmental Disabilities Home and Community-Based Medicaid Waiver services (January 5 Letter). The letter read as follows: The Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), Office of Inspector General, Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity is in the process of completing a review of claims billed to Medicaid during the period June 01, 2011, through December 01, 2011, to determine whether the claims were billed and paid in accordance with Medicaid policy. Pursuant to Section 409.913, Florida Statutes (F.S.), this is official notice that the Agency requests the documentation for services paid by the Florida Medicaid provider to the above provider number [679849796]. The Medicaid-related records to substantiate billing for the [four] recipients identified on the enclosed printout are due within fifteen (15) calendar days of your receipt of this notification. Please submit the documentation and the attached Certification of Completeness of Records to the Agency within this timeframe, or other mutually agreed upon timeframe. Correspondence and requested records should be sent to the following address: Victor Rivera, Investigator Agency for Health Care Administration Medicaid Program Integrity 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S309 South Tower, Hurston Building Orlando, Florida 32801 In accordance with Section 409.913, F.S., and Rule 59G-9.070, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), the Agency shall apply sanctions for violations of federal and state laws, including Medicaid policy. Pursuant to the aforementioned provisions, failure to provide all Medicaid-related records in compliance with this request will result in the application of sanctions, which include, but are not limited to, fines, suspension and termination. The Medicaid-related records associated with this review should be retained until [the review is] completed. If you have any questions, please contact Victor Rivera, Investigator, at (407)420- 2524. The Certification of Completeness of Records form enclosed with the letter was to be completed by the provider's "official custodian of records," and it contained the following verification and certification: I hereby verify that I have searched the Medicaid-related records maintained by the Provider and have determined that the attached records consisting of (# of pages) are true and correct copies of the Medicaid- related records requested by the Agency for Health Care Administration, Office of the Inspector General, Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity. I further certify that these are all of the Medicaid-related records that were made at or near the time that the services were rendered by, or from information transmitted by, the Provider; are kept in the course of the regularly conducted business of the Provider; and that it is the regular practice of the Provider to keep such records. Also accompanying the letter was a printout providing information concerning "documentation organization." Among other things, it advised that the "employee documentation" that needed to be submitted included "[c]opies of all required AHCA training certificates," and it contained the further advisement that "[f]ailure to follow the aforementioned guidelines and/or failure to provide the [sic] ALL of the requested documentation for ALL staff members who provided services to Medicaid Recipients during the predetermined audit period w[ould] result in the [a]application of sanctions," including "fines." The January 5 Letter and accompanying documents were received by Respondent on January 9, 2012. Ten days later, MPI sent Respondent a second letter, dated January 19, 2012 (January 19 Letter). This letter concerned claims that Respondent had filed under its Provider No. 142150600 as a provider of assistive care services, and it provided as follows: The Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), Office of Inspector General, Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity is in the process of completing a review of claims billed to Medicaid during the period January 1, 2011, through November 30, 2011, to determine whether the claims were billed and paid in accordance with Medicaid policy. Pursuant to Section 409.913, Florida Statutes (F.S.), this is official notice that the Agency requests the documentation for services paid by the Florida Medicaid provider to the above provider number [143150600]. The Medicaid-related records to substantiate billing for the [four] recipients identified on the enclosed printout are due within fifteen (15) calendar days of your receipt of this notification. Please submit copies of the Medicaid-related records and the attached Certification of Completeness of Records to the Agency within this timeframe, or other mutually agreed upon timeframe. Correspondence and requested records should be sent to the following address: Victor Rivera, Investigator Agency for Health Care Administration Medicaid Program Integrity 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 309 South Tower, Hurston Building Orlando, Florida 32801 In accordance with Section 409.913, F.S., and Rule 59G-9.070, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), the Agency shall apply sanctions for violations of federal and state laws, including Medicaid policy. Pursuant to the aforementioned provisions, failure to provide all Medicaid-related records in compliance with this request will result in the application of sanctions, which include, but are not limited to, fines, suspension and termination. The Medicaid-related records associated with this review should be retained until [the review is] completed. If you have any questions, please contact Victor Rivera, Investigator, at (407)420- 2524. At the bottom of the "enclosed printout" referenced in the letter was the following cautionary advisement: Please refer to your Assistive Care Services handbook, July 2009, for information on the required documentation for recipient files. The Certification of Completeness of Records form enclosed with the letter was identical to the Certification of Completeness of Records form that had accompanied the January 5 Letter. The January 19 Letter and accompanying documents were received by Respondent on January 21, 2012. Respondent, through its owner/administrator Angel Cox, responded to the records requests made in the January 5 and January 19 Letters by providing MPI with copies of numerous documents, along with two completed, signed, and dated Certifications of Completeness of Records (one for each records request), on January 24, 2012.6/ Ms. Cox supplemented this response by faxing additional copies to MPI on February 7, 2012. Victor Rivera, the MPI investigator to whom Respondent had been directed to send its responses to MPI's January 5, 2012, and January 19, 2012, records requests, reviewed the documentation that Ms. Cox had submitted and determined that the following Medicaid-related records that Respondent had been requested to produce in the January 5 and January 19 Letters were missing (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Further Required Documentation"): written proof that D. S., an employee of Respondent's who had helped deliver services for which Respondent had billed the Florida Medicaid program from June 1, 2011, through December 1, 2011, under its Developmental Disabilities Home and Community-Based Medicaid Waiver services provider number, had completed the infection control and zero tolerance training required by the Developmental Disabilities Waiver Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook; and the annual health assessments required by the Assistive Care Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook for the four recipients of the services for which Respondent had billed the Florida Medicaid program from January 1, 2011, through November 30, 2011, under its assistive care services provider number. At all times material to the instant cases, Respondent had the Further Required Documentation in its possession,7/ however, Ms. Cox had inadvertently failed to include these documents in the submissions she made (on behalf of Respondent) in response to MPI's January 5 and January 19 Letters. Ms. Cox first learned that the Further Required Documentation was missing during a telephone conversation she had with Mr. Rivera at the end of March 2012, when he advised her of the omission and told her that she needed to get these documents to him "as soon as possible."8/ On April 1 or 2, 2012, no more than three or four days after this telephone conversation, Ms. Cox provided Mr. Rivera, by fax, with copies of the following: a certificate of completion issued by APD to employee D. S. on April 28, 2010, for "Zero Tolerance Training"; a certificate of completion issued by All Metro Health Care to employee D. S. for "Infection Control Guidelines" training completed on February 12, 2011; and a completed March 2011 annual health assessment recorded on AHCA Form 1823 (2011 Health Assessment Form) for each of the four recipients identified in the printout accompanying the January 19 Letter. Respondent also had in its possession the previous year's completed AHCA Form 1823 (2010 Health Assessment Form) for each of these recipients, but Ms. Cox did not fax copies of these forms9/ to Mr. Rivera because she reasonably believed that Mr. Rivera had asked only for the 2011 Health Assessment Forms.10/ MPI tries to "work with the [Medicaid] providers." If a provider is asked by MPI to provide, "as soon as possible," a specified document or documents previously requested but not produced and the provider, in response to such a follow-up request, produces the document(s) in question within a matter of days, it is MPI's practice to not impose any sanctions on the provider and, instead, to "move on to the next case."11/ In the instant cases, however, in an unexplained departure from that practice, MPI chose to issue the April 9, 2012, sanction letters set out above. It is these sanction letters that frame the issues to be resolved in these cases.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration dismiss the allegations made against Respondent in the April 9, 2012, sanction letters issued in these cases and it not impose any sanctions against Respondent for the conduct alleged in these letters. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 2013.
The Issue Whether the subject supplemental Medicaid payments to Petitioner for services to patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) during the audit period January 1, 1999 through June 20, 2001, constitute overpayments. Whether Respondent has the authority to recoup such overpayments. If such authority is found, whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment should be applied to prevent Respondent's recouping any overpayment under the facts of this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner operates a duly-licensed nursing home located in Broward County, Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a Medicaid provider with the following Medicaid provider number: 020695400. As a Medicaid provider, Petitioner agreed to comply with all pertinent state and federal laws and regulations. At the times pertinent to this proceeding Petitioner had a valid Medicaid Provider Agreement with Respondent. Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for oversight of the integrity of the Medicaid program in Florida. The unnumbered opening sentence of Section 409.913, Florida Statutes, provides as follows: The agency shall operate a program to oversee the activities of Florida Medicaid recipients, and providers and their representatives, to ensure that fraudulent and abusive behavior and neglect of recipients occur to the minimum extent possible, and to recover overpayments and impose sanctions as appropriate. During the audit period, Petitioner was subject to all of the duly enacted statutes, laws, rules, and policy guidelines that generally govern Medicaid providers. Petitioner was required to follow all the Medicaid Coverage and Limitation Handbooks and all Medicaid Reimbursement Handbooks in effect, including, the Florida Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook, Institutional 021 (the Institutional Provider Handbook), which is incorporated by reference by Respondent's Rule 59G-4.200, Florida Administrative Code. During the audit period, the applicable statutes, laws, rules, and policy guidelines in effect required Petitioner to maintain all "Medicaid-related Records" and information that supported any and all Medicaid invoices or claims that Petitioner made during the audit period.1 During the audit period, the applicable statutes, laws, rules, and policy guidelines in effect required Petitioner at Respondent's request to provide Respondent or Respondent's authorized representatives all Medicaid-related Records and other information that supported all the Medicaid-related invoices or claims that Petitioner made during the audit period.2 Section 409.913(7), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (7) When presenting a claim for payment under the Medicaid program, a provider has an affirmative duty . . . to supervise and be responsible for preparation and submission of the claim, and to present a claim that is true and accurate and that is for goods and services that: * * * Are provided in accord with applicable provisions of all Medicaid rules, regulations, handbooks, and policies and in accordance with federal, state, and local law. Are documented by records made at the time the goods or services were provided, demonstrating the medical necessity for the goods or services rendered. Medicaid goods or services are excessive or not medically necessary unless both the medical basis and the specific need for them are fully and properly documented in the recipient's medical record. Section 409.913(1), Florida Statutes, defines the terms "medical necessity" and "medically necessary" as follows: "Medical necessity" or "medically necessary" means any goods or services necessary to palliate the effects of a terminal condition, or to prevent, diagnose, correct, cure, alleviate, or preclude deterioration of a condition that threatens life, causes pain or suffering, or results in illness or infirmity, which goods or services are provided in accordance with generally accepted standards of medical practice. For purposes of determining Medicaid reimbursement, the agency is the final arbiter of medical necessity. Determinations of medical necessity must be made by a licensed physician employed by or under contract with the agency and must be based upon information available at the time the goods or services are provided. Section 409.913(10), Florida Statutes, provides as follows: (10) The agency may require repayment for inappropriate, medically unnecessary, or excessive goods or services from the person furnishing them, the person under whose supervision they were furnished, or the person causing them to be furnished. Section 409.913(1)(d), Florida Statutes, defines the term "overpayment" as follows: "Overpayment" includes any amount that is not authorized to be paid by the Medicaid program whether paid as a result of inaccurate or improper cost reporting, improper claiming, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse, or mistake. On March 28, 2001, Respondent sent Petitioner the audit letter for the audit period. The audit letter provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The Agency for Health Care Administration, Medicaid Program Integrity office has completed a review of your Medicaid claims for dates of service during the period January 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000. A provisional letter was sent to you indicating you were overpaid $49,965.30 for claims that in whole or in part are not covered by Medicaid. We have received no response from you regarding the provisional letter. This review and the determination of overpayment were made in accordance with the provisions of Section 409.913, Florida Statutes (F.S.). In determining payment pursuant to Medicaid policy, the Medicaid program utilizes procedure codes, descriptions, policies and the limitations and exclusions found in the Medicaid provider handbooks. In applying for Medicaid reimbursement, providers are required to follow the guidelines set forth in the applicable rules and Medicaid fee schedules, as promulgated in the Medicaid policy handbooks and billing bulletins. Medicaid cannot pay for services that do not meet these guidelines. The audit letter thereafter cited the following from Chapter 7 of the Institutional Provider Handbook (Chapter 7) in asserting there had been an overpayment: Nursing facilities may receive a supplemental payment for a recipient with AIDS. The supplemental payment must be prior authorized by the Medicaid office before the facility will be reimbursed for it. The facility where the recipient resides must request the prior authorization. The Medicaid office notifies the provider with a letter of approval or denial. An approved authorization is not a guarantee that Medicaid will reimburse the supplemental payment. The provider must be enrolled in Medicaid, and the recipient must be eligible on the date of service for a Medicaid program that reimburses for institutional care.3 Chapter 7 provides as follows for the effective date of the supplement: If the recipient is approved for the increased supplemental payment, the approval letter will state the effective date of the supplemental payment. The effective date of the supplemental payment is determined by the following criteria: If the recipient was ICP eligible when admitted to the facility and met the AIDS criteria on the admission date, the effective date will be the same as the admission date. If an ICP recipient becomes HIV positive while in the facility and meets the AIDS criteria, the effective date will be the date that the Medicaid office determines the clinical criterion was evidenced. For recipients registered through SFAN, the effective date will be the effective date of the SFAN registration or ICP eligibility, whichever is later. Chapter 7 provides that a nursing home may receive "H" Supplement payments for a recipient who has been diagnosed as being positive for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), has laboratory confirmation of a reactive screening test for HIV antibodies, and is receiving active treatment for a condition that meets the Center for Disease Control definition of AIDS. A nursing home may also receive "H" Supplement payments for a recipient who is registered with the South Florida AIDS Network (SFAN). Chapter 7 requires that a request for prior authorization contain a letter from the facility requesting the "H" Supplement payment; a copy of the admission cover sheet; a confirming HIV test (Western Blot or IFA)4; and a signed physician letter or statement documenting current treatment for an opportunistic AIDS-related disease, or if the recipient is registered with SFAN, a letter from the facility stating that the recipient was admitted to the registry, the date admitted, and the SFAN registry number. During the audit period, Petitioner billed Respondent for "H" Supplement Payments in the total amount of $49,965.30 for eight separate recipients. Prior to the issuance of the audit letter, Petitioner did not submit, make, or deliver any "H" Supplement prior request for any of the eight recipients at issue. Despite the fact that the "H" Supplement payments were not prior authorized, Respondent made those payments to Petitioner.5 The parties stipulated that the eight recipients at issue were patients of Petitioner, suffered from AIDS, and received treatment from Petitioner for AIDS. The parties further stipulated that six of the eight recipients suffered from AIDS opportunistic diseases. There is no dispute as to whether the other two recipients suffered from disease, but there was no stipulation that the diseases were AIDS opportunistic diseases.6 There is no issue as to the quality of care rendered the eight recipients. Fraud is not at issue in this proceeding. Subsequent to the issuance of the audit letter, the only recipient for which Petitioner has presented a Western Blot confirmatory test is for the recipient identified with the initials J.F. and further identified in Petitioner's Exhibit G. Petitioner has not submit a Western Blot or IFA test for the seven other recipients at issue in this proceeding. Petitioner's medical records do not establish that, but for its failure to obtain prior authorization for each recipient, the subject "H" Supplements would have been paid by Respondent. Section 409.913(10), Florida Statutes, provides as follows: (10) The agency may require repayment for inappropriate, medically unnecessary, or excessive goods or services from the person furnishing them, the person under whose supervision they were furnished, or the person causing them to be furnished. Section 409.913(14), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (14) The agency may seek any remedy provided by law, including, but not limited to, the remedies provided in subsections (12) and (15) and s. 812.035, if: * * * The provider has failed to maintain medical records made at the time of service, or prior to service if prior authorization is required, demonstrating the necessity and appropriateness of the goods or services rendered; The provider is not in compliance with provisions of Medicaid provider publications that have been adopted by reference as rules in the Florida Administrative Code; with provisions of state or federal laws, rules, or regulations; with provisions of the provider agreement between the agency and the provider; or with certifications found on claim forms or on transmittal forms for electronically submitted claims that are submitted by the provider or authorized representative, as such provisions apply to the Medicaid program . . .
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order finding Petitioner received overpayments from the Medicaid Program for "H" Supplement payments during the audit period in the amount of $49,965.30. It is further recommended that Petitioner be required to repay those overpayments. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 2001.
The Issue Is the practice of Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), limiting Medicaid reimbursement for services provided to undocumented aliens determined by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to be eligible for Medicaid services for the duration of a medical emergency an "agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the procedure or practice requirements of an agency"1/ that section 120.54, Florida Statutes (2014),2/ requires the Agency to adopt as a rule? Are Agency rules 59G-4.160(2) and 59G-5.020 invalid because they exceed the Agency's delegated authority and contravene the statute which the rule implements?3/ & 4/
Findings Of Fact The Parties Title XIX of the Social Security Act establishes Medicaid as a collaborative federal-state program in which the state receives federal financial participation (FFP) from the federal government for services provided to Medicaid-eligible recipients in accordance with federal law. The state also provides funding for the Medicaid program. Section 409.902(1) designates the Agency to administer Florida's Medicaid program. The program provides medical care for indigent people in Florida. Federal and state laws, federal regulations, and state rules, including Medicaid handbooks incorporated by reference into the rules, govern eligibility for, participation in, and payment by the program. The Hospitals are acute care hospitals enrolled as providers in the Florida Medicaid program that provide emergency medical services. They have obtained, and intend to seek in the future, Medicaid compensation for emergency services provided to undocumented aliens. To participate in the Medicaid program, the Hospitals have agreed to a Medicaid Provider Agreement with the Agency. The agreement governs the terms under which the Medicaid program will compensate hospitals for services provided to individuals. Those terms include multiple state and federal statutes and rules discussed below. The Agency makes payments to Hospitals subject to its right to later audit the claims for payment and recoup payments if the Agency determines that they were not authorized. The Medicaid Program and Undocumented Aliens Until 2010 Federal law prohibits compensating a state through federal financial participation under the Medicaid program "for medical assistance furnished to an alien who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence or otherwise permanently residing in the United States under color of law [undocumented aliens]." 42 U.S.C. § 1396b(v)(1). It permits federal financial participation for services provided to otherwise eligible undocumented aliens that "are necessary to treat an emergency medical condition as defined in paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)," if the individual otherwise meets the conditions for participation in the Medicaid program. 42 C.F.R. § 40.255(a). See also 42 U.S.C. § 1396b(v)(2). For purposes of eligibility of undocumented aliens, 42 U.S.C. § 1396b(v)(3) defines "emergency medical condition" as: medical condition (including emergency labor and delivery) manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in-- (A) placing the patient's health in serious jeopardy, (B) serious impairment to bodily functions, or (C) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part. Florida statutes and rules, with minor variations, incorporate the federal standards limiting the eligibility of undocumented aliens to treatment for emergency medical conditions. Federal laws and regulations do not impose a defined endpoint or quantitative limit on the duration of the eligibility due to the emergency medical condition. Sections 409.902 and 409.904 address Medicaid services for undocumented aliens. Section 409.904(4) establishes the criteria for the limited Medicaid eligibility of undocumented aliens. Section 409.902(1) designates the Agency "as the single state agency authorized to make payments for [Medicaid services]." Section 409.902(1) makes [DCF] "responsible for Medicaid eligibility determinations." Section 409.902(2) restricts Medicaid eligibility to United States citizens and lawfully admitted noncitizens who meet the Medicaid eligibility criteria for "qualified noncitizens" for temporary cash assistance.5/ Section 409.902(2)(b) limits use of state funds to provide medical services to individuals who do not meet the requirements of the subsection. It permits an exception for use of state funds to provide medical services that are necessary "to treat an emergency medical condition." The Florida Medicaid Hospital Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook, June 2011 (Hospital Handbook), incorporated by reference into the Agency's rule 59G-4.160(2), states on page 2-7 the limits on reimbursement for services provided undocumented aliens as follows: The Medicaid Hospital Services Program reimburses for emergency services provided to aliens who meet all Medicaid eligibility requirements except for citizenship or alien status. Eligibility can be authorized only for the duration of the emergency. Medicaid will not pay for continuous or episodic services after the emergency has been alleviated. The Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook, 2012 (Provider Handbook), incorporated by rule 59G-5.020, repeats this limitation. Earlier versions of the Handbooks have essentially the same requirements and limitations. Section 409.904(4) authorizes DCF to find an undocumented alien eligible for Medicaid, but limits the duration of the eligibility for undocumented aliens. It states: A low-income person who meets all other requirements for Medicaid eligibility except citizenship and who is in need of emergency medical services. The eligibility of such a recipient is limited to the period of the emergency, in accordance with federal regulations. From 2005 to 2012, the definitions of section 409.901 for "emergency medical condition" and "emergency services and care" have remained unchanged, although the subsection numbering for them has changed. "Emergency medical condition" is defined as: A medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity, which may include severe pain or other acute symptoms, such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in any of the following: Serious jeopardy to the health of a patient, including a pregnant woman or a fetus. Serious impairment to bodily functions. Serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part. With respect to a pregnant woman: That there is inadequate time to effect safe transfer to another hospital prior to delivery. That a transfer may pose a threat to the health and safety of the patient or fetus. That there is evidence of the onset and persistence of uterine contractions or rupture of the membranes. "Emergency services and care" are defined as: [M]edical screening, examination, and evaluation by a physician, or, to the extent permitted by applicable laws, by other appropriate personnel under the supervision of a physician, to determine whether an emergency medical condition exists and, if it does, the care, treatment, or surgery for a covered service by a physician which is necessary to relieve or eliminate the emergency medical condition, within the service capability of a hospital. DCF's Emergency Medical Services for Aliens, rule 65A-1.715, provides: Aliens who would be eligible for Medicaid but for their immigration status are eligible only for emergency medical services. Section 409.901(10), F.S., defines emergency medical conditions. The Utilization Review Committee (URC) or medical provider will determine if the medical condition warrants emergency medical services and, if so, the projected duration of the emergency medical condition. The projected duration of the emergency medical condition will be the eligibility period provided that all other criteria are continuously satisfied. Emergency services are limited to 30 consecutive days without prior approval. For continued coverage beginning with the 31st day prior authorization must be obtained from the Agency for Health Care Administration (Medicaid Program Office). DCF's rule 65A-1.702(2)(c), implementing Title XIX, in its provisions for establishing a patient's date of eligibility, states: "Coverage for individuals eligible for the Emergency Medicaid for Aliens program begins the first day of a covered emergency and ends the day following the last day of the emergency medical situation." Until July 1, 2010, neither DCF nor the Agency had a system, procedure, or practice for determining when the duration of an undocumented alien's emergency ended or when the emergency was alleviated, other than the initial determination of eligibility. DCF's consistent practice was to make its eligibility determination based upon a review of the information provided by healthcare providers on DCF Form 2039 after discharge of the patient. The providers usually provided additional information and documents, including information about the diagnosis and treatment and the projected or actual duration of the emergency. DCF's practice, since 2002, has been to routinely accept the information and documents submitted by the provider and base the eligibility determination on them. DCF's consistent practice was to not allow providers to submit any documentation until after the patient was discharged. Consequently, the information upon which DCF based its eligibility determination for undocumented aliens was actual, not projected. DCF notifies providers of the eligibility decision by sending a completed DCF Form 2039 or making the information available online. The information contains the specific period of eligibility for the undocumented alien, including the beginning and ending date of the eligibility period. This is the duration of the emergency medical condition. Until July 1, 2010, under previous administrations, the Agency did not make any consistent or meaningful effort to determine if the services for which a hospital billed Medicaid were for the emergency medical conditions that were the predicate for DCF's determination of emergency eligibility. The Agency's automatic process for reviewing Medicaid claims kicked out claims for services to undocumented aliens eligible because of an emergency medical condition. These claims were manually reviewed by just two nurses. The system allowed two choices, "approve" or "deny." Sometimes the nurses reviewed requests for Medicaid reimbursement from providers solely to determine if the services provided were medically necessary. This is the same standard used to determine if Medicaid will pay for services provided to citizens and documented aliens. The process and the number of claims overwhelmed the two nurses conducting the review. A huge claims backlog developed. This resulted in the review becoming more minimal and intermittent. Hospitals complained about the resulting payment delay. The Agency worried about it, too. On September 9, 2009, Dyke Snipes, deputy director of Medicaid, released all the backlogged claims for payment without review. Later, he sent the hospitals a memorandum stating the claims would be paid without further review subject to later audit and claims for recoupment. However, from July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2010, the Agency did not audit any of the claims for payment for hospital services provided to undocumented aliens. In 2002, as required by statute, the Agency began a prior authorization program for Medicaid inpatient hospital services. The purpose was to determine, before payment, if services were medically necessary. The Agency contracted with KePRO to perform the prior authorization reviews for medical necessity. In the case of services to undocumented aliens, the prior authorization review and medical necessity determination was not made, despite the name, until the patient was discharged. The Agency's Bureau of Medicaid Services performed a separate review of claims for payment of services to undocumented aliens to determine if the services were for the treatment of an emergency medical condition. The Bureau conducted this review after the Department had determined that the patients were eligible for Medicaid and after KePRO had authorized the services. Nurses employed by the Agency reviewed the claims and accompanying records to determine if the services were for treatment of an emergency medical condition. The review did not include judgments about the number of days appropriate for treatment, the relationship between services provided, and the emergency or the duration of the emergency. Before July 1, 2010, the Agency, to the extent that it did anything, implemented and applied the rule, statute, and regulation provisions permitting payment for emergency medical services to eligible undocumented aliens by paying claims for the period of eligibility determined by the Department for services that KePRO determined were medically necessary and that the Bureau had determined to be necessary for treatment of an emergency medical condition. The Agency did not conduct a targeted review to determine when the emergency ended or when the emergency was alleviated. Altogether, the Agency was just not enforcing the statutory and rule limitations upon payment for emergency medical services to persons that DCF determined eligible. Federal Audit Eventually, Florida's failure to enforce the limitations came to the attention of the federal government. On August 25, 2009, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) presented the Agency with the report of its Financial Management Review of Florida's Medicaid Payments for Emergency Services to Undocumented Aliens. The transmittal letter asked Florida "to retroactively review claims for emergency medical services provided to undocumented aliens for proper eligibility determinations. We will defer these claims until the State has reviewed the claims." The federal government said that payment of the FFP to Florida for emergency medical services for undocumented aliens was in question, but it would delay deciding while Florida conducted the requested review. In plainer words, the federal government said it would hold up on recouping FFP paid for services to undocumented aliens. CMS "determined that the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) claimed Federal Financial Participation (FFP) for emergency services to beneficiaries that did not meet the Federal Definition of undocumented alien. In addition, AHCA claimed FFP for additional medical services that did not qualify as emergency care after the patient was stabilized." Finding number 2 of the report stated: "AHCA is claiming FFP for emergency medical services to undocumented aliens provided beyond what Federal statutes and regulations define to be an emergency." Recommendation number five stated: AHCA should review all emergency services for undocumented alien amounts claimed for FFP during Federal Fiscal Years 2005, 2006 and 2007 and re-determine allowability of these claims utilizing the required Federal criteria. Based on this review and re-determination, AHCA should revise previous FFP amounts claimed on the Form CMS-64 quarterly statement of expenditures report to reflect only emergency services to undocumented aliens (supported by SAVE and IVES research) up to the point of stabilization. Upon completion, please report the results of your review to CMS. Recommendation number 6 stated that: "AHCA [should] promptly implement the necessary system edits so that services provided as emergent care can be differentiated from services provided after the point the patients are stable, and then bill to the proper Federal programs."6/ The audit identified the Agency's electronic claims system's lack of system edits needed to account and separate claims for costs incurred "during emergent care and costs past stabilization" as a contributing factor. CMS concluded that it believed Florida's claims for payment for emergency medical services were "significantly overstated." The report stated: "During our review, we found that AHCA is claiming costs for emergency services for undocumented aliens, during the patients' entire hospital stay, and beyond the emergency or stabilization point as defined by Federal statutes and regulations." It asked Florida to conduct "re-reviews of claims for emergency medical services provided undocumented aliens." CMS did not recommend that Florida change its statutes or rules governing Medicaid eligibility of undocumented aliens. It only recommended that Florida enforce existing law. In September 2010, the Office of Inspector General for the United States Department of Health and Human Services released its "Review of Medicaid Funding for Emergency Services Provided to Nonqualified Aliens [by Florida]." This review observed that the Agency "relied upon two medical staff to review approximately 4,000 such claims per month, and this limited review was not sufficient to prevent some unallowable claims from being paid." The review also noted the problem with the system edits that the Agency was using. The system just identified claims for services to undocumented aliens and kicked them out for review by the two nurses who were not capable of properly reviewing the claims because of the overwhelming volume. The review observed that the system had an edit which could classify claims under five options: emergency, urgent, elective, newborn, and information not available. The review stated: "If active, this edit may have ensured that the State Agency properly claimed Federal reimbursements." The audit and the review, as well as the testimony of Johnnie Shepherd, the Agency administrator, convincingly establish that up to 2010, the Agency was not applying or enforcing federal or Florida statutory and rule requirements limiting medical services to undocumented aliens for emergency conditions. The Agency Reacts to the Audit and Review The Agency began working to implement the recommendations. KePRO presented a proposal to expand the scope of its services that it described in this fashion: It is our understanding that the Agency for Health Care Administration used internal resources to conduct such [emergency care for undocumented aliens] reviews. Previously, cases were authorized for payment using medical necessity criteria verses [sic] "point of stabilization." Approximately 12,000 cases dating back to 2006 fall into this category. This presents the Agency with an opportunity to recoup payments for hospital days that exceeded the "point of stabilization." The Agency amended its contract with KePRO to include review of claims for emergency services to undocumented aliens to determine if the services continued beyond the duration of the emergency. The Agency and KePRO began the review process. The requirements are included in the Agency's contracts with KePRO's successor, eqHealth Solutions. The Agency began advising providers of the coming changes in review and authorization of Medicaid services for undocumented aliens. The Agency's campaign incorporated use of "stabilization" from the CMS reviews. "Stabilization" did not appear in any pertinent Florida statutes or rules. A July 1, 2010, letter to all Medicaid providers from the chief of the Bureau of Medicaid Services advised of upcoming changes to the Agency's procedure and practice for reviewing claims for undocumented aliens. It is representative of the Agency's approach. The letter stated: Beginning July 1, 2010, the Keystone Peer Review Organization (KePRO), Medicaid's contractor for utilization management of inpatient services, will implement revised review processes for inpatient admissions for undocumented aliens. KePRO will review these requests to determine whether conditions requiring hospitalization are an emergency, defined in 42 CFR 440.255 as follows: The sudden onset of a medical condition (including emergency labor and delivery) manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in: Placing the patient's health in serious jeopardy; Serious impairment to bodily functions; or Serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part. Medicaid will not pay for continuous or episodic care after the emergency has subsided and the patient is stabilized. The letter also stated: Professional services provided to an inpatient alien on or after the date that the patient has been stabilized will not be reimbursed by Medicaid. From the point of patient stabilization, the patient may continue to require medically necessary treatment; however, Medicaid cannot reimburse medically necessary treatment for aliens, only emergency treatment. Hospitals, including many of the challengers here, brought an action claiming the Agency was using a new "stabilization" standard that amounted to a rule that had not been adopted. They prevailed. That action was Bayfront I. The Final Order in Bayfront I found that "the 'point of stabilization' standard was an interpretation or an implementation of the existing statutes and rules and not merely a restatement of them." Bayfront I, DOAH Case No. 12-2757RU, at ¶ 54. It concluded that the "Agency's 'stabilization' standard for determining which services to un-documented aliens Medicaid will pay for is a statement of general applicability meeting the definition of a rule that has not been adopted pursuant to section 120.54(1)(a)." Bayfront I, DOAH Case No. 12-2757RU, at ¶ 74. The Final Order required the Agency to "immediately discontinue all reliance upon the 'stabilization' standard or any substantially similar statement as a basis for agency action." Since Bayfront I The Agency complied with the Final Order by discontinuing all reliance on a "stabilization standard" (or any other unadopted standard) as a basis for agency action. It did not abandon its efforts to review past, present, and future hospital claims for Medicaid payment for emergency services provided to undocumented aliens. The Agency developed new instructions for peer reviewers evaluating claims and amended affected contracts. It provided reviewers the language of the governing rules and statutes to use in evaluations. The material included the provisions of the Florida Medicaid Handbooks that have been incorporated by reference into the Agency's rules. The Agency emphasized, as Shevaun Harris, bureau chief, Bureau of Medicaid Services, testified: [Peer reviewers should] no longer use stabilize, to use--to use that terminology anymore, and that they should follow the policy. The policy--the handbook provides instruction to readers in terms of which words they need to go back to the glossary. And then words that are not defined are its plain--should be used--should be applied using its plain meaning. (Pet. Ex. 130, pp. 29 & 30). The Agency expected the reviewers to apply their education, clinical expertise, and experience to determine if services provided were "emergency services or treatment," as defined in section 409.901(11) for an "emergency medical condition," as defined in section 409.901(10). A January 28, 2013, memorandum to peer reviewers from Johnnie Shepherd, AHCA Administrator, Medicaid Program Integrity, is a representative example of the Agency's instructions to peer reviewers. It told the reader of the result of Bayfront I and stated that the Agency "will cease to rely upon the 'stabilization' standard or any substantially similar statement as a basis for determining the duration of the emergency." The Agency attached applicable excerpts from statutes and rules. It also advised the importance of reports "of sufficient detail and complexity to clearly support any claims payment adjustments based upon the medical determination and the application of Medicaid rules." (P. Ex. 130, AHCA Bates No. 463). Similarly, the Agency advised other "vendor[s] to make sure that they were using terminology as found in the rules that are promulgated and that their determinations are consistent with the rules as they are promulgated." (Pet. Ex. 130, p. 15). The vendors advised their employees and agents accordingly. Exhibit 2 to the desposition7/ of Carol Roberts, program manager for the Fee for Service Rules Unit, is a representative example of these instructions. The Power Point slides for a presentation reproduced the statutory definition for "emergency medical condition" and "emergency services and care." A March 7, 2013, internal eqHealth e-mail from Naveen Gande to Mary McPhee demonstrates that the vendors followed the instructions. It states that the "stabilization" standard should not be used and that reviewers should refer to the Agency handbooks. Likewise an e-mail exchange between Mr. Shepherd and Eileen Bechkes of Vendor Health Integrity demonstrates the Agency's reliance upon statutes and rules. Ms. Bechkes relayed a question from Winter Haven Hospital asked during an audit entrance conference. It asked to "explain the difference between the standard of 'stabilization of the emergency condition' and the standard of 'emergency condition is relieved or eliminated.'" (Pet. Ex. 119[B], p. 3).8/ Mr. Shepherd's response states the Agency position frankly. Thanks for this question. Our positon is to direct the provider to the Medicaid Provider's general Handbook and the other references mentioned in the audit letters. Since this question has been brought up prior to the other letters conveying the references to the provider, we should simply tell them to read the Medicaid policy reference for the limited coverage category that pertains to Medicaid for Aliens as found in the Medicaid Provider General Handbook. Also, the General Handbook includes definitions for Emergency Services and Care and Emergency Medical Condition. Finally, we are asking the peer reviewers to apply their education, experience and judgment in reviewing the respective medical records to determine if an emergency medical condition existed, and if it did at what point was the emergency medical condition alleviated or eliminated per the definitions found in the Medicaid references. The instructions to Agency or vendor employees reviewing the claims for payment for emergency medical services to undocumented aliens consistently emphasized that all participants were to apply only the applicable statutes and rules and that "stabilization" was not a criterion. The Hospitals rely heavily upon the wording of the post-Bayfront I amendment to the eqHealth contract (P. Ex. 89) and Ms. Harris's testimony about it. (P. Ex. 130, p. 117, ll. 19-22). These things, the hospitals argue, prove that the Agency is still attempting to determine the length of the period of eligibility and that this is a new interpretation of the rules and statutes. The existing language provided that the vendor would review the cases to time the point at which the emergency no longer existed and the patient's condition was stable. The amendment said: "The Vendor shall review these cases to determine the point at which the emergency no longer exists, in accordance with state and federal statutes." Ms. Harris's testimony on page 119 of Petitioner's Exhibit 30 clarifies that the amendment was referring to "the Agency's obligation to pay for services for undocumented aliens or individual who met all other requirements for Medicaid, except citizenship." The weight of the evidence, including training materials and written communications, proves that despite poor wording in the amendment, the parties to the contract stayed focused on determining whether the Agency was being asked to pay for services that state and federal law permitted it to, not determining the length of the emergency medical condition. The Agency was resolute in its commitment to only apply the standards and definitions of statutes and rules in the evaluation of claims for payment for emergency medical services to undocumented aliens. The Agency's resolve was tested in meetings with provider representatives, inquiries from vendors, and internal questions. Agency representatives repeatedly said that the rules and statutes determine the standards and people should apply the plain meaning of their words. Agency documents did the same. The Agency did not succumb to the temptation, as it did with "stabilization," to explain in different words the words of statute and rule. The weight of the evidence convincingly established that after entry of the Final Order in Bayfront I, the Agency's statements of general applicability implementing the law governing Medicaid reimbursement for emergency medical services to undocumented aliens were only quotes from or references to governing statutes and rules.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Utopia Home Care, Inc. (Utopia or Petitioner), is entitled to payment of $38,432.71 for the services it provided to Medicaid recipients during the period of January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Utopia was an authorized Medicaid provider in the State of Florida. Pursuant to a valid Medicaid provider agreement, Utopia was authorized to provide home and community-based services to Medicaid recipients. The Agency is charged with the administration and oversight of the Medicaid Program and funds throughout the State of Florida. One of the Agency's responsibilities is to monitor the provision of Medicaid services and make payments to providers for services which have been appropriately provided and for which claims have been correctly processed. During the period of January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000 (the audit period), Utopia rendered services to Medicaid recipients who receive home care services through the Medicaid Program. The cost of these services, for which Utopia has not received payment, is $38,432.71. There is no dispute that these services were authorized and provided by Utopia. Robert Fritz is vice president of Utopia and works in Utopia's St. Petersburg, Florida, office. In or about February 2002, while Mr. Fritz was participating in an accounts receivable project, he discovered that Utopia had not been paid for some of the services it had provided to Medicaid recipients during the audit period. Mr. Fritz contacted the Agency soon after he discovered that Utopia had not received payment for the services it rendered during the audit period. Over a period of several months, Utopia, through Mr. Fritz, provided the Agency with documentation that the services were authorized and had been invoiced at or near the time the services were provided. Additionally, at the request of the Agency, Utopia completed numerous 081 Forms, Request for Payment Forms for the Florida Medicaid Program, to establish a baseline as to what claims were unpaid. Utopia completed the 081 Forms for the services which were provided during the audit period and for which it had not received payment in or about February 2002. In addition to the completed 081 Forms, dated February 2002, Utopia also provided to the Agency documentation generated from Utopia's computer system in Florida. The documents, created by the computer system on a weekly basis, included payroll checks for employees and invoices for services rendered. As part of Utopia's contractual requirements with the lead agency, which oversees the Medicaid Program at the local level, a monthly Medicaid Expenditure Tracking Report (Expenditure Tracking Report) is created by Utopia's St. Petersburg, Florida, office. The Expenditure Tracking Report lists anticipated expenditures from the Medicaid system to Utopia for services rendered in a particular month. Many of these documents were provided to the Agency in seeking to establish that the services had been provided during the audit period and to obtain payment for the services. The documents created by Utopia's computer system and discussed in paragraph 6 above were created at or near the time services were rendered. Due to the documentation provided by Utopia, the Agency stipulated that Utopia provided authorized services to Medicaid recipients and that the cost of these services was $38,432.71. Nonetheless, the Agency has refused to pay Utopia for the services because the claims were not filed in accordance with Medicaid procedures, as established in the Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook, Non-Institutional 081 (Reimbursement Handbook). Based on the Agency's review of its records, it determined that Utopia had not filed the claims within 12 months of the services being rendered. The procedures for filing claims for Medicaid payments are outlined in the Reimbursement Handbook, which is referenced and incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-8.200(6). Also, for purposes of this case, the Reimbursement Handbook sets forth the applicable Medicaid requirements for processing claims. The Reimbursement Handbook, pages 6-2 and 6-3, provides in relevant part the following: Medicaid providers should submit claims timely so that any problems with a claim can be corrected and the claim resubmitted before the filing deadline. * * * A clean claim for services rendered must be received by the agency or its fiscal agent no later than 12 months from the date of service. * * * The date electronically coded on the provider's electronic transmission by the Medicaid fiscal agent is the recorded date of receipt for an electronic claim. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Consultec was the company responsible for receiving claims from and paying those claims to Medicaid providers in the State of Florida. The Reimbursement Handbook indicates that the processing time for claims "under normal circumstances" is within 10 to 30 days after the claim is filed. The Reimbursement Handbook also provides that a "remittance voucher" is mailed each week if Consultec processed any claims or put any claims in "Suspend" status. With regard to the remittance voucher, the Reimbursement Handbook, page 8-4, states in relevant part the following: The remittance voucher plays an important role in communications between the provider and Medicaid. It tells what happened to the claims submitted for payment--whether they were paid, suspended, or denied. It provides a record of transactions and assists the provider in resolving errors so that denied claims can be resubmitted. The provider must reconcile the remittance voucher with the claim in order to determine if correct payment was received. Utopia filed all its claims electronically. Therefore, to determine whether Utopia was entitled to payment for services rendered during the audit period, the Agency searched its data warehouse. The data warehouse allows the Agency to review claims that have been electronically filed and the status of those claims. Based on the Agency's review, which compared claims filed by Utopia in February 2002 for services rendered during the audit period, the Agency found that 36 claims had been submitted by Utopia and paid and 108 claims had not been paid. With regard to the 108 claims that were not paid, the Agency found no evidence that the claims had ever been filed. Utopia's St. Petersburg, Florida, office provided the services in question. Staff members in that office generate and enter data into the computer system that creates the documents described in paragraph 6 above and provide billing information to the local lead agency. Utopia provides this information to the local lead agency, Neighborly Senior Services (Neighborly), pursuant to a contractual arrangement which authorizes Utopia to provide services to Medicaid recipients. Utopia's staff at the St. Petersburg, Florida, office prepares and compiles billing information regarding the services it has provided and electronically transmits the information to Utopia's corporate office in Kingsburg, New York. The practice of Utopia is that the corporate office in New York then finalizes the billing information and transmits the claims to the entity designated by the Agency to process and pay claims. At all times relevant to this proceeding, that entity was Consultec. Once the St. Petersburg, Florida, office transmits the billing information to the corporate headquarters in New York, it has no further responsibility or control over the billing information sent to Medicaid. Utopia's St. Petersburg, Florida, office also has no responsibility to reconcile the services actually billed to Medicaid by the corporate office with the services provided in Florida. At this proceeding, no evidence was presented to establish that Utopia's corporate office in New York ever filed claims for the services during the audit period for which no payment has been made. Likewise, Utopia never provided the Agency with documentation or evidence that claims for the services provided during the audit period were ever filed within 12 months of the services being provided. Similarly, no such evidence was ever produced at this proceeding. The Reimbursement Handbook provides for exceptions to the 12-month time limit if the claim meets one or more of the following conditions: (1) original payment voided, (2) court or hearing decision, (3) delay in recipient eligibility determination, (4) agency delay in updating eligibility file, (5) court ordered or statutory action, and (6) system error on a claim that was originally filed within 12 months from the date of service. Upon consideration of the applicable provisions of the Reimbursement Handbook, the Agency properly determined that Utopia did not file the claims within 12 months from the date of the service and that none of the conditions were present which warranted granting an exception.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency enter a final order finding that the disputed claims were not filed within the required 12-month period and denying reimbursement of those services. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffries H. Duvall, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Mail Station 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Robert C. Fritz Utopia Home Care, Inc. 215 Second Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether Respondent was overpaid $237,802.50 for services that in whole, or in part, are not covered by Medicaid because the services were performed by rendering providers who did not have the requisite education or work experience to meet the eligibility requirements in the Behavior Analysis Services Coverage Handbook (“BA Handbook”) to perform the services or for whom documentation was insufficient to determine eligibility; and, if so, the amount of the overpayment to be repaid, the amount of any fine to be imposed against Respondent, and the amount of any investigative, legal, and expert witness costs to be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact This case involves a Medicaid audit by AHCA of Respondent, which relates to dates of service from November 1, 2017, through December 31, 2018 ("audit period"). During the audit period, Respondent was an enrolled Medicaid provider and had a valid Medicaid provider agreement with AHCA, Medicaid Provider No. 017421300. As an enrolled Medicaid provider, Respondent was subject to the duly- enacted federal and state statutes, regulations, rules, policy guidelines, and Medicaid handbooks incorporated by reference into rule, which were in effect during the audit period. AHCA is designated as the single state agency authorized to make payments for medical assistance and related services under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. This program of medical assistance is designated the "Medicaid Program." See § 409.902, Fla. Stat. AHCA has the responsibility for overseeing and administering the Medicaid Program for the State of Florida, pursuant to section 409.913, Florida Statutes. AHCA’s Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity (MPI), pursuant to its statutory authority, conducted an audit of Respondent of paid Medicaid claims for services to Medicaid recipients. Medicaid claims are paid under what is known as a “pay and chase” system. Claims are quickly paid under the presumption the provider is billing in accordance with Medicaid law and rules. When paid claims are later audited and AHCA finds non-compliant claims, the payments are deemed overpayments and AHCA requests reimbursement. Section 409.913 allows MPI to audit for fraud and abuse. Abuse includes “[p]rovider practices that are inconsistent with generally accepted business…practices and that result in an unnecessary cost to the Medicaid program….” See § 409.913(1)(a)1., Fla. Stat. All Florida Medicaid providers are required to maintain, for at least five years, “contemporaneous documentation of entitlement to payment, including employment eligibility, compliance with all Medicaid Rules, regulations, handbooks and policies.” This includes business records, Medicaid-related records and medical records. See § 409.913(7)(e) and (f), Fla. Stat. A provider’s failure to document, in accordance with Medicaid handbooks and the Provider Enrollment Agreement, whether its rendering providers met the criteria to provide services, as stated in the promulgated handbook, is inconsistent with generally accepted business practices. Behavior analysis services are “highly structured interventions, strategies, and approaches provided to decrease maladaptive behaviors and increase or reinforce appropriate behavior for persons with mental health disorders, and developmental or intellectual disabilities.”1 Medicaid coverage for these services is limited to children under the age of 21. Behavior analysis 1 See Section 1.0 “Introduction” of Florida Medicaid Behavior Analysis Services Coverage Policy (October 2017); Fla. Admin. Code R. 59G-4.125. recipients are a vulnerable population, consisting of individuals that have mental health disorders, and intellectual and developmental disabilities, including, but not limited to, autism and Down Syndrome. They often have severe deficits in their abilities to complete self-care tasks and communicate their wants and needs. These clients are at a heightened risk of abuse, neglect, and exploitation because of their developmental disabilities and inability to self-preserve. For these reasons, persons entrusted to provided critical services must meet the minimum qualifications. To provide appropriate services to this vulnerable population, BAs are required to meet the criteria set forth in Section 3.2 of the BA Handbook, incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-4.125, “Behavior Analysis Services,” as amended, October 29, 2017. The BA Handbook requires a BA to have “a bachelor’s degree from an accredited university or college in a related human service field” and an agreement to become a Registered Behavior Technician (“RBT”) by 1/1/19; or, alternatively: (1) be at least 18 years old; (2) have a high school diploma; (3) have “at least two years of experience providing direct services to recipients with mental health disorders, developmental or intellectual disabilities”; and (4) have at least “20 hours of documented in-service trainings in the treatment of mental health, developmental or intellectual disabilities, recipient rights, crisis management strategies and confidentiality.” AHCA’S AUDIT This audit was opened in follow-up to AHCA’s statewide review of behavior analysis services. The assessment of these services revealed rampant fraud and abuse within the behavior analysis program including more than twice as many providers as recipients, providers billing unbelievable hours (such as more than 24 hours per day), and unsubstantiated qualifications, meaning that patients were receiving BA services from unqualified providers. Based on information obtained in the statewide behavior analysis review, AHCA issued a moratorium regarding new enrollments in Southeast Florida and chose a number of providers for audits. Respondent was selected for audit. Petitioner audited Respondent's records related to paid claims from November 1, 2017, through December 31, 2018. This audit period was selected because an updated Behavior Analysis Handbook was promulgated and became effective October 29, 2017.2 AHCA’s review of Respondent's records consisted of identifying the rendering providers for whom Respondent provided insufficient or no documentation to support their qualifications to render behavior analysis services. The parties stipulated that none of the rendering providers at issue had both a bachelor’s degree “in a related human services field” and had obtained their RBT by January 1, 2019. Respondent and AHCA also stipulated that the records for each rendering provider indicate they were at least 18 years old and had obtained at least a high school diploma or its equivalent. The only questions that remained was did the BA provider have the requisite two years of experience with the target population and did they have 20 hours or more of the required applicable in-service training. During the Audit Period, Respondent submitted claims for services rendered by 169 rendering providers, for which Medicaid paid Respondent a total of $3,999,828.65. Based on the audit, Petitioner initially determined Respondent had been overpaid in the amount of $1,060,590.41. AHCA issued a Preliminary Audit Report (“PAR”) dated March 25, 2019, notifying Respondent of the rendering providers deemed not qualified and the amount 2 During the MPI audit period, Respondent was placed under pre-payment review by a different section of AHCA. Respondent stopped billing during the audit period and its Medicaid provider number was terminated without cause in October 2018. As such, although the audit period was from November 1, 2017, through December 31, 2018, the last claims reviewed in the audit were for date of service March 28, 2018, as that was the date of the last paid claim. of the overpayment associated with each. Respondent was given the opportunity to pay the PAR amount or submit additional records. In response to the PAR, Respondent submitted additional records. Based on the those additional records, AHCA issued a FAR dated July 19, 2019, alleging Respondent was overpaid $905,838.36 for BA services it billed for 41 BA rendering providers who did not meet the criteria specified in the BA Handbook. In addition, the FAR informed Respondent that AHCA was seeking to impose a sanction of $2,500.00 pursuant to rule 59G-9.070(7)(c), and costs of $1,280.00 pursuant to section 409.913(23)(a). In sum, Petitioner asserted in the FAR that Respondent owed a total of $909,618.36. Kathy Herold is a Senior Pharmacist with AHCA’s MPI unit. In that capacity she assists with MPI audits. She compiles and analyzes data; applies appropriate rules, regulations, policies, and procedures to oversee the activities of Florida Medicaid providers to detect fraudulent or abusive behavior and minimize the neglect of recipients; recovers overpayments; imposes sanctions; and makes referrals as appropriate to the Florida Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, the Florida Department of Health, and the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation. She has over seventeen years’ experience in administrative investigations. She is a Certified Fraud Examiner. Ms. Herold re-reviewed the records provided by Respondent to determine whether the rendering providers for whom behavior analysis services were billed met the qualifications. AHCA did not place any limitations on how Respondent documented the qualifications of its rendering providers. AHCA’s only concern was whether the criteria were met. During the audit, and through the discovery process, Respondent supplied AHCA with copies of employment applications, resumes, letters of recommendation, and training certificates of the BAs in question. At the time of the final hearing, the qualifications of only 14 BAs remained in dispute and the amount sought in overpayment was calculated by AHCA as $237,802.50. Based on the competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence, AHCA demonstrated that the audit was properly conducted. RENDERING PROVIDERS AT ISSUE Eduardo Rodriguez The resume for Eduardo Rodriguez lists work with Abreu Quality (“Abreu”) from 2017 to “present.” It does not indicate a job title or reference any work with the target population in that job. There is no contact information that would have allowed Respondent the opportunity to verify the alleged work experience. The resume also lists “Private Case” work with a child with disabilities from 2010-2014 and 2016-2017. There is no contact information that would have allowed Respondent the opportunity to verify the alleged work experience. The application for Mr. Rodriguez, dated December 27, 2017, Mr. Rodriguez lists BA work with Abreu from February 2017 to “present” (December 27, 2017). While that listing (unlike the resume) contains contact information that would have allowed Respondent the opportunity to verify the alleged work experience, that work, even if verified, did not meet the requisite work experience as it was at most ten months. The application also lists two BA jobs for “Private Case.” There is no information provided that would have allowed Respondent the opportunity to verify the alleged work experience met the requisite work experience or the target population requirements. One private job was from 2010-2014 and the other was from 2016-2017 The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a letter of recommendation by Felicia Noval. That letter makes no reference to work with the target population. There is no indication who Ms. Noval is or how she knows Mr. Rodriguez. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a letter of recommendation by Jose Chao. However, that letter contains no indication of work with the target population. There is no indication of who Mr. Chao is or how he knows Mr. Rodriguez. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a background screening requested by Respondent. The background screening indicates that Mr. Rodriguez was not eligible to work with the target population until April 2017. Because Respondent requested the screening, it knew or should have known that Mr. Rodriguez did not have the requisite work experience. Based on conflicting information as to when Mr. Rodriguez worked at Abreu, Ms. Herold reviewed documentation submitted by Abreu to AHCA. This documentation indicates that Mr. Rodriguez only worked for them from May 18, 2017, to June 17, 2017. The documents submitted by Respondent to AHCA for Mr. Rodriguez contained training certificates for both the 20-hour BA course and the 40- hour RBT course. Mr. Rodriguez began working for Respondent on February 8, 2018. The last paid claim for Mr. Rodriguez was March 23, 2018. Based on the documentation provided by Respondent, Mr. Rodriguez did not have documented requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period, or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period. Despite Respondent having documentation that Mr. Rodriguez satisfied the training requirement, payments made by AHCA to Respondent for services billed for him are an overpayment because he did not have the requisite work experience or there is insufficient documentation that he had the requisite work experience. Fanny Vargas The application for Fanny Vargas, dated March 1, 2017, lists work as a BA/AHH for Children’s Home Services (“CHS”) from 2015-2017. There is no indication of how long Ms. Vargas performed each function. There is no indication of work with the target population in the job as an AHH. There is insufficient information to determine how long Ms. Vargas worked for CHS. The application did not provide sufficient information regarding whether Ms. Vargas had the requisite work experience. The resume for Ms. Vargas only lists BA work with CHS from 2015- “still working” (presumably March 1, 2017, the date of the application). There is still insufficient information on the resume to determine when Ms. Vargas began at CHS or if Ms. Vargas worked at CHS for over two years. The resume also lists “private service” for children with special needs from 2012- 2015. The “private service” job was not listed on the application. There is no contact information listed on the resume for the “private service” job that would have allowed anyone to verify it. The resume did not provide sufficient information regarding whether Ms. Vargas had the requisite work experience. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent indicate Ms. Vargas was not screened as a Medicaid Provider until January 14, 2017. She was enrolled as a Medicaid provider on April 4, 2017, effective January 9, 2017. She could not have provided services to the target population with CHS before then. The date of service for the last paid claim for Ms. Vargas is December 31, 2017. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Vargas had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period or by the end of the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Javier Collazo Veloz The application for Javier Collazo Veloz, dated May 4, 2017, lists work as Private Practice BA in Miami for Melissa Catano, from “08/01/2016–” (presumably May 4, 2017) and BA work for Fe y Alegria in Ecuador from March 9, 2015–April 3, 2016. Combined, those jobs do not satisfy the requisite work experience. The resume for Mr. Collazo Veloz only lists work as a BA for Fe y Alegria. However, on the resume the dates of employment are listed as July 1, 2013–July 1, 2015. Those dates conflict with the information Mr. Collazo Veloz listed on his application. Based on the conflict regarding the work with Fe y Alegria, Ms. Herold attempted to verify it. She located a website for Fe y Alegria, but the website makes no mention of work with the target population. The last paid claim for Mr. Collazo Veloz was February 16, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Mr. Collazo Veloz had the documented requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that he satisfied the training requirement. Jorge N. Bernal The application for Jorge N. Bernal, dated March 29, 2017, lists work as an x-ray technician from April 15, 2015, to July 17, 2015. There is no indication of work with the target population and the nature of that work would not contribute to the requisite work experience. Overlapping with the x-ray technician job, Mr. Bernal also lists he was a teacher at Jesus Para Todos from December 1, 2012, to March 15, 2016. The resume makes no mention of work with the target population associated with that job and there is no contact information on the application that Respondent could have used to verify the alleged work experience. The resume for Mr. Bernal only lists the teacher job at Jesus Para Todos, but there is no contact information to verify the employment. The resume indicates that job involved work with the target population. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained numerous documents indicating Mr. Bernal was born June 16, 1993. That means that Mr. Bernal was purportedly “teaching” when he was only 17. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent also contained an honor roll certificate which indicates that Mr. Bernal was attending college while purportedly “teaching.” The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent post-PAR contained a letter of reference from International Ministry of Jesus for All (“Jesus Para Todos”) dated March 19, 2019. That letter does not clearly corroborate that Mr. Bernal was teaching there. The letter from Jesus Para Todos indicated it was a church, not a school. The letter further indicates that Mr. Bernal “was able to serve to the kid’s ministry and youth groups, teaching kids and youth and serving in our community, and participate in helping special need kids in our church.” Mr. Bernal began work for Respondent on November 7, 2017. The last paid claim for Mr. Bernal is February 17, 2018. Thus, not only could the letter from Jesus Para Todos not have been used to verify work in the hiring process, it also was not created until after the audit period and almost one year after the end of Mr. Bernal’s employment with Respondent. Given the conflicting information regarding Jesus Para Todos, Ms. Herold attempted to verify the facility. She discovered there was no online presence for the facility, and it was not listed in the State’s database of private schools or licensed daycares. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Mr. Bernal had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that he satisfied the training requirement. Leyanis Morffi The application for Leyanis Morffi, dated June 30, 2017, lists two cashier jobs. The nature of that work would not contribute to the requisite work experience. The application also lists work as a paid childcare worker at Smiles Childcare from October 2014 to November 2016. However, there is no mention of work with the target population at that job. The resume for Ms. Morffi lists the same work experience that was listed on the application. Again, there is no reference to work with the target population at the childcare job. The resume further indicates that Ms. Morffi “specializes in homes for the elderly and youth detention facilities.” However, there is no listing of that type of work on the application or resume. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a background screening requested by Respondent. The screening indicates that Ms. Morffi was not eligible to work with the target population until February 2017. Because Respondent requested the screening, it knew or should have known that Ms. Morffi did not have the requisite work experience. Documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a letter of reference dated September 5, 2017, from Lazaro Noel Suarez. That letter is dated post-hire and was provided to AHCA post-PAR. It references one year of BA work. However, it provides no specific dates or date range, and contains no contact information that could be used to verify the information. Neither the application nor the resume indicates any BA work prior to Respondent to which this letter could correlate. Documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a letter of reference dated July 30, 2017, from Doris Jimenez. That letter is dated post- hire and was provided to AHCA post-PAR. It makes no reference to work with the target population. It makes no mention of the relationship between Ms. Morffi and Ms. Jimenez. The letter does not indicate where the work was performed. Documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contain a letter of reference dated April 5, 2018. The author is unknown as the signature is illegible. That letter is dated post-hire and was provided to AHCA post-PAR. It references work at Smiles Childcare from October 2014 to May 2017. While the letter mentions work with the target population, there is no way to determine who wrote the letter or the author’s relationship to Ms. Morffi. The letter contains no contact information that could be used to verify the information. The dates of service in the letter conflict with the dates of service listed by Ms. Morffi in her application and resume. The letter indicates that Ms. Morffi was a volunteer, while her application indicates she earned $10.00 per hour. While volunteer work would count toward requisite work experience, the conflicting information undermines the credibility of both this letter and the information provided by Ms. Morffi. Based on the conflicting information regarding Smiles Childcare, Ms. Herold attempted to verify the information. Smiles Childcare had no internet website and was not listed by the State as a childcare facility. The last paid claim for Ms. Morffi is March 16, 2018. Not only could the April 5, 2018, letter not have been used to verify work in the hiring process, it also was not created until after the audit period and over two weeks after the end of Ms. Morffi’s employment with Respondent. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Morffi had the documented requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Luigui Melendez Tijerino The application for Luigui Melendez Tijerino, dated January 30, 2017, lists overlapping work as a Pharmacy Tech at Walmart from June 2012 to “present” (presumably the date of the application) and as a food prepper at Wendy’s from October 2013 to June 2014. There is no indication of work with the target population and the nature of those jobs would not contribute to the requisite work experience. Overlapping with the Pharmacy technician job, Mr. Melendez Tijerino also listed BA work with ABA Pro Support Services (“ABA Pro Support”) from May 2015 to January 31, 2017. The resume for Mr. Melendez Tijerino lists the same jobs as indicated on the application and also lists work as a server at “The Chelsea” from April 2011 to September 2013. There is no indication of work with the target population and the nature of that job would not contribute to the requisite work experience. Documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contain a background screening requested by Respondent. The screening indicates that Mr. Melendez Tijerino was not eligible to work with the target population until October 2016. Because Respondent requested the screening, it knew or should have known that Mr. Melendez Tijerino did not have the requisite work experience. Documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contain an undated letter of reference from Xochilt Povsic.3 That letter was provided to AHCA post-PAR. That letter references work with the target population, but it does not mention any dates that would allow anyone to determine if it satisfied the requisite work experience. The letter does not mention where the BA services were allegedly performed, and the only indication of BA work on Mr. Melendez Tijerino’s application and resume was at ABA Pro Support. Based on the conflicting information regarding work at ABA Pro Support, Ms. Herold looked further into the matter. In response to the letter sent to ABA Pro Support for the BA statewide review, ABA Pro Support advised that Mr. Melendez Tijerino was never an employee. That information was provided to AHCA on January 12, 2018. 3 Ms. Povsic is another rendering provider at issue in the audit. Ms. Povsic may be or may have been related to Mr. Melendez Tijerino as the documents submitted by Respondent for her indicate she used to be called Xochilt Tijerino. Documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contain a letter of reference dated September 23, 2016, from Walmart, that was provided to AHCA post-PAR. That letter does not reference work with the target population and the nature of the job would not contribute to the requisite work experience. Mr. Melendez Tijerino began working for Respondent on November 1, 2017. The last paid claim for Mr. Melendez Tijerino was January 27, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Mr. Melendez Tijerino had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that he satisfied the training requirement. Maria Oduber The application for Maria Oduber, dated November 29, 2017, lists “young care worker” with “Loyal Resource/CHS” from August 2015 to March 2017. There is no mention of work with the target population associated with that job. Overlapping with that job, the application lists work as client support with HOPWA Housing from March 2010 to January 2017. The application also lists work as an ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) teacher at Greystone Elementary School and as a theater teacher in “Caracas.” There is no indication of work with the target population and the nature of those jobs would not contribute to the requisite work experience. The resume for Ms. Oduber listed the same jobs as listed on the application. There was still no mention of work with the target population for any of those jobs. Ms. Oduber began working for Respondent on January 2, 2018. The last paid claim for Ms. Oduber was March 17, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Oduber had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Mey Weiss Rodriquez The application for Mey Weiss Rodriguez is dated October 4, 2017, on the front and October 10, 2017, on the back. The application lists work as an assistant at Eliseo Reyes School in “S. Spiritus, Cuba,” from September 2010 to December 2014. There is no mention of work with the target population associated with the job. The application also lists work at Provincial Veterinary Laboratory from August 1997 to August 2010. There is no indication of work with the target population and the nature of that job would not contribute to the requisite work experience. The resume submitted for Ms. Weiss Rodriguez lists the same work on the application, but with less specific information regarding dates, and no information regarding location or contact information. Contrary to the application, work with the target population is listed for Eliseo Reyes School. The resume also claims that Ms. Weiss Rodriguez is an RBT even though Respondent stipulated that none of the rendering providers at issue obtained an RBT by January 1, 2019. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a letter of recommendation dated October 4, 2017, from Carmen Yebra. The letter was provided to AHCA post-PAR and makes no mention of work with the target population. Due to the conflict regarding whether there was work with the target population, and the fact there was no documentation of independent verification of that matter, Ms. Herold attempted to verify the work experience. No search engine provided a listing for Eliseo Reyes School and Google Maps, while providing detailed information on Sancti Spiritus, Cuba, indicated the address listed on the application does not exist. The last paid claim for Ms. Weiss Rodriguez was March 17, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Weiss Rodriguez had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period, or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Sorelys Ferros On her application dated March 14, 2017, Sorelys Ferros lists work as an RBT with MHB Consultants Group (“MHB”) beginning in December 2015 with no end date listed. However, Respondent stipulated that none of the rendering providers at issue obtained an RBT by January 1, 2019. The resume for Ms. Ferros lists the job at MHB and also lists work at Respondent from March 2017 to present. On her resume, Ms. Ferros also indicates that she obtained her RBT certification in December 2015. However, as indicated above, Respondent stipulated that none of the rendering providers at issue obtained an RBT by January 1, 2019. Documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contain a background screening requested by Respondent. The screening indicates that Ms. Ferros was not eligible to work with the target population until June 2016. As such, she could not have obtained her RBT certification by December 2015. Because Respondent requested the screening, it knew or should have known that Ms. Ferros did not have the requisite work experience and that she was not actually an RBT. The last paid claim for Ms. Ferros was February 2, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Ferros had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period, or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Teresita Rodriguez The application for Teresita Rodriguez, dated August 10, 2017, lists two jobs as an HHA-BA,4 one with Gifted Health Group, Inc. (“Gifted”), from January 2010 to February 2014, and the other with Nory’s Home Services, Inc. (“Nory’s”), from February 2014 to April 2015. There is no indication of how long Ms. Rodriguez worked in the capacity of an HHA versus as a BA at either job. There is no indication of work with the target population in the HHA job at Gifted or Nory’s. The application also listed work as an HHA at Homecare for Neighborhood Home Health (“Neighborhood”) from April 2015 to “actual” (presumably, the date of the application, August 10, 2017). There is no mention of work with the target population in the job with Neighborhood. The resume for Ms. Rodriguez, lists the same jobs listed on the application; however, the work with Neighborhood is listed on the resume as HHA-BA, and not HHA Homecare. The resume provides more description for each job, and only the job at Gifted describes work with the target population. Documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contain a background screening requested by Respondent. The screening indicates that Ms. Rodriguez was not eligible to work with the target population until September 2015. Based on the screening, Ms. Rodriguez could not have worked with the target population at Nory’s, Neighborhood, or Gifted before then. Because Respondent requested the screening, it knew or should have known that Ms. Rodriguez did not have the requisite work experience. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained an undated letter of reference from Josie Vallejo. That letter does not reference any work with the target population but specifically mentions work with Ms. Vallejo’s mother, a senior, although it does not provide any dates. The letter mentioned that Ms. Vallejo had been a friend of Ms. Rodriguez for six years. 4 Presumably, “HHA” as used in applications and on resumes of rendering providers stands for Home Health Aide. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contain an undated letter of reference from Danitza Montero. The letter from Ms. Montero states Ms. Rodriguez cared for Ms. Montero’s son, but does not indicate the son was a member of the target population. Ms. Rodriguez began working for Respondent on December 26, 2017. There is no documentation indicating that Ms. Rodriguez worked for Gifted past August 10, 2017. The last paid claim for Ms. Rodriguez was March 17, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Rodriguez had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period, or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Xochilt Povsic The application for Xochilt Povsic, dated January 31, 2017, states she worked as a membership coordinator for Sam’s Club, and a dietary aide at Bentley Commons at Paragon Village in New Jersey. There is no indication of work with the target population at either job, and the nature of those jobs would not contribute to the requisite work experience. Overlapping the dietary aide job, on her application Ms. Povsic also indicates work as a BA at two private practice/personal care jobs. Ms. Povsic states she worked for Maria Mora from August 2013 to June 2015 and that she worked for Miriam Ponzano from September 2014 to December 2015. The resume for Ms. Povsic listed the same jobs and dates as listed on the application and also listed another dietary aide job with Fellowship Village in New Jersey. The resume contains descriptions of the type of work performed at each job. There is no mention of work with the target population at either dietary aide job or in the job at Sam’s Club, and those jobs would not be of the type to contribute to the requisite work experience. The work for Ms. Mora was described by Ms. Povsic as providing BA services from August 2013 to June 2015 to a “3-4 [year old child]” with autism, ADHD, and behavior disorders. The work for Ms. Ponzano was described by Ms. Povsic as providing BA services from September 2014 to December 2015 to twin boys, “1-2 years old” with behavior disorders and ADHD. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a letter from Miriam Ponzano that is not dated and was provided to AHCA post-PAR. While Ms. Ponzano confirms that Ms. Povsic cared for her boys, there is no indication that the children were part of the target population or that any work performed contributed to the requisite work experience. In addition, the dates of service listed by Ms. Ponzano conflict with the dates listed by Ms. Povsic. Ms. Ponzano indicated the Ms. Povsic cared for her sons from November 2015 to March 2016, not September 2014 to December 2015, as had been asserted by Ms. Povsic on her application and resume. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent also contained a letter from Maria Mora, that is not dated, and was provided to AHCA post- PAR. Ms. Mora did not confirm that Ms. Povsic had cared for her 3 to 4-year- old son with autism, ADHD, and behavior disorders, as Ms. Povsic had indicated. Rather, Ms. Mora’s letter indicates that Ms. Povsic was her caretaker, performing personal tasks such as picking up medicines and buying groceries. Ms. Mora does not indicate that she is part of the target population and the services listed are not of the type to contribute to the requisite work experience. In addition, the dates of service listed by Ms. Mora conflict with the dates listed by Ms. Povsic. Ms. Mora indicates that Ms. Povsic cared for her during the winter of 2014 to 2015 (even mentioning that Ms. Povsic shoveled snow for her), not August 2013 to June 2015, as had been indicated by Ms. Povsic on her application and resume. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a letter from Maydelis Cruz. The letter is not dated and was provided to AHCA post- PAR. Ms. Cruz indicates she has known Ms. Povsic for 20 years. Ms. Cruz indicates that Ms. Povsic assisted with her son, who has Down Syndrome, from November 2011 to March 2013. Ms. Povsic would only have been 17 years old at that time. The last paid claim for Ms. Povsic was March 17, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Xochilt Povsic had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period, or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Yaima Alvarez The application for Yaima Alvarez, dated August 10, 2017, listed two overlapping HHA jobs: “Faith,” from July 2016 to “present” (presumably August 10, 2017, the date of the application); and Home Health Solutions, from June 2017 to present (August 10, 2017). There is no indication of work with the target population for either job. The resume for Ms. Alvarez lists no work experience, but has listings under “Professional Affiliations” that appear to be a work history. Faith Health Care, Inc., is listed with dates that correspond to the listing for Faith on the application. There is no mention of a job title or work with the target population regarding Faith Health Care, Inc. Solutions Group, Inc., is also listed under “Professional Affiliations.” As with Faith Health Care, Inc., there is no mention of her job title or work with the target population. That listing does not appear to be the same job that is listed as Home Health Solutions on the resume as the dates do not correspond. There is no indication of work with the target population for Faith Health Care, Inc., or Solutions Group, Inc. There is also a listing for “L.G. (R.B.T. patient).” However, as indicated before, Respondent stipulated that none of the rendering providers at issue obtained an RBT by January 1, 2019. Ms. Alvarez began working for Respondent on December 12, 2017. The last paid claim for Ms. Alvarez was February 8, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Alvarez had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Yudisley Garces The application for Yudisley Garces, dated April 20, 2017, lists overlapping CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) jobs. One was with AAA Home Health Service (“AAA”) from June 2014 to today (April 20, 2017) and the other is with Alma Care, Inc. (“Alma Care”), from August 2015 to “today” (presumably the date of the application, April 20, 2017). There is no indication of work with the target population for either job. The resume for Ms. Garces only lists the job for AAA. However, the dates listed on the resume for that job (beginning June 2014) conflict with the dates listed on the application (beginning February 2014). There is no indication of work with the target population associated with that job. The resume also listed two jobs (one at a hospital in Cuba and the other at a hospital in Venezuela) performing puncture aspiration biopsies and cervical cancer diagnoses. There is no mention of work with the target population at either of those hospital jobs, and those jobs would not be of the type to contribute to the requisite work experience. The last paid claim for Ms. Garces was March 17, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Garces had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period, or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Zerelys Lauzerique The resume for Zerelys Lauzerique lists work with “Lenin & Daughter” and Ignite Christian Academy (“Ignite”). There is no indication of work with the target population regarding the job at Ignite. It also lists work as a fitness coach with Beach Body, as a Youth Pastor at Cross Church, and as an Assistant Director at Flames of Fire Bible School (“Flames of Fire”), that is not listed on the application. The Beach Body work overlaps the BA work with Lenin & Daughter. There is no indication of working with the target population associated with the jobs at Beach Body, Cross Church, or Flames of Fire, and those jobs would not be of the type to contribute to the requisite work experience. The application for Ms. Lauzerique, dated December 4, 2017, lists work as a BA with Lenin & Daughter from December 2016 to “current” (presumably the date of the application, December 4, 2017) and as a Teacher Assistant with Ignite from August 2014 to August 2015. There is no mention of work with the target population regarding the job at Ignite. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a letter of reference dated December 5, 2016, from Melanie Reyes, a “close friend.” The letter from Ms. Reyes does not indicate any work with the target population and instead pertains to Ms. Lauzerique’s work at Beach Body. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent also contained a letter of reference dated December 2016 from Reverend Abram Gomez of Cross Church. The letter indicates that he worked with Ms. Lauzerique for two years, but does not indicate any work with the target population. Ms. Lauzerique began working for Respondent on December 11, 2017. The last paid claim for Ms. Lauzerique was January 6, 2018. The documents submitted by Respondent to AHCA for Ms. Lauzerique contained training certificates for both the 20-hour BA course and the 40-hour RBT course. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Lauzerique had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period, or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period. Respondent's Response The owner of Hour Bliss, Inc., Mr. Perez-Delgado, testified on behalf of Respondent. He is a Board-Certified Behavior Analyst, has a master’s certification in addiction, and is a Licensed Mental Health Counselor. Mr. Perez-Delgado testified that Respondent served populations in Miami that no other company would because of the crime. Mr. Perez-Delgado said that when he enrolled Respondent as a BA provider, many of the rendering providers he hired had worked at other companies where he had also worked, and because of this, he believed they met the qualifications required to serve as BAs. Mr. Perez-Delgado testified that he provided records he thought were relevant to the Medicaid investigation beginning in August 2017, and again in January 2018 and April 2019. If there had been a problem, he would have liked AHCA to institute a corrective action plan. However, he alleges the next communication from AHCA was terminating his Medicaid provider number without cause. Later, he received notice of the audit. Much of the testimony from Mr. Perez-Delgado concerned events that occurred prior to the audit beginning in November 2018, and the issuance of the PAR and FAR in 2019. These events are obviously related to the pre-payment review or other matters with AHCA, and not the audit. Mr. Perez-Delgado testified that several of his rendering providers were parents of children with autism or ADHD. Accordingly, they had more than the requisite experience with the target population. However, he did not document that in the files provided to the Agency. Nor did he timely provide records demonstrating that these same workers met the training requirement. Mr. Perez-Delgado offered no information regarding how or whether he verified prior work experience of these BAs in question. ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT In this case, AHCA presented credible, persuasive evidence establishing that the audit giving rise to this proceeding was properly conducted. AHCA obtained and reviewed records from Respondent, issued a PAR, reviewed additional records submitted after the PAR, issued the FAR, and even then continued to review records and consider evidenced that, by giving Respondent the benefit of the doubt whenever possible, further reduced the overpayment. In this audit, AHCA examined the records provided by Respondent to determine if it maintained business records and Medicaid-related records establishing that its rendering providers met the qualifications set forth in the BA Handbook. The BA Handbook required no special documentation. Respondent, as are all providers who contract to provide Medicaid services, was required to keep contemporaneous records regarding entitlement to payment, including employment eligibility, and compliance with all Medicaid rules, regulations, handbooks, and policies. Respondent failed to provide AHCA with documentation that its rendering providers met the qualifications set forth in the BA Handbook. Of the 14 BA providers in dispute, 12 lacked any documentation of the requisite work experience with the target population and meeting the training requirement. Only two BAs, Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Lazerique, met the training requirements, but did not meet the required work experience with the target population.
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 incorporating the terms of this Recommended Order as follows: AHCA overpaid Respondent the sum of $237,802.50 for BA services and Respondent must reimburse the Agency for those payments. AHCA is entitled to an administrative sanction in the amount of $2,500.00. AHCA, as the prevailing party in this proceeding, is entitled to recover, from Respondent, costs including all investigative, legal, and expert witness costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 27th day of April, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Julio Cesar Perez-Delgado Hour Bliss, Inc. Apartment 406 888 Brickell Key Drive Miami, Florida 33131 (eServed) Susan Sapoznikoff, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Kimberly Murray, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Stefan Grow, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Mary C. Mayhew, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Shena L. Grantham, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Room 3407B 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Thomas M. Hoeler, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed)
