The Issue The following are the issues presented: Whether Respondent, Leeland ER SVCS Partnership (“Leeland”), is liable to the Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) for Medicaid overpayments in the amount of $12,377.17, during the audit period of March 1, 2009, through August 31, 2011; Whether Leeland should be required to pay an administrative fine of $2,475.43, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-9.070(7)(e); and Whether Leeland is liable to AHCA for the agency’s investigative, legal, and expert witness costs pursuant to section 409.913(23)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: ACHA 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,” i.e., the “Medicaid program.” § 409.902(1), Fla. Stat. Among its duties as the Medicaid agency, AHCA is required to conduct audits of medical providers participating in the Medicaid program, and to “recover overpayments and impose sanctions as appropriate.” § 409.913, Fla. Stat. Section 409.913(1)(e) defines "overpayment" to include "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." The Medicaid provider agreement is a voluntary contract between AHCA and the provider. An enrolled Medicaid provider must comply fully with all state and federal laws pertaining to the Medicaid Program, including the Medicaid provider handbooks incorporated by reference into AHCA’s rules, as well as all federal, state, and local laws pertaining to licensure to receive payment from the Medicaid program. This case involves an AHCA Medicaid audit conducted of Leeland’s paid Medicaid claims as to the dates of service from March 1, 2009, through August 31, 2011, hereinafter referenced as the “audit period.” Leeland was randomly selected for audit and had no prior violations of Medicaid law. Therefore, any sanction imposed on Leeland in this proceeding would constitute a “first offense” under the operative rule discussed in the Conclusions of Law below. During the audit period, Leeland was an enrolled Medicaid provider and had a valid Medicaid provider agreement with AHCA. As an enrolled provider, Leeland was subject to all relevant federal and state statutes, rules, policy guidelines, and Medicaid handbooks incorporated by reference into rule. AHCA issued a PAR, dated June 20, 2013, alleging that Leeland was overpaid $200,349.16 for certain claims that in whole, or in part, were not covered by Medicaid. AHCA later issued a FAR, dated August 16, 2013, alleging that Leeland was overpaid $33,111.52 for certain claims that in whole, or in part, were not covered by Medicaid. The FAR further informed Leeland that AHCA intended to impose a fine of $6,622.30 (20% of the total overpayment) as a sanction for violation of rule 59G-9.070(7)(e) and to impose costs pursuant to section 409.913(23). Leeland received the FAR on August 23, 2013. Leeland timely filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing on September 24, 2013. On October 9, 2013, Leeland tendered payment to AHCA in the amount of $33,111.52, as requested in the FAR, to be held in escrow pending the administrative hearing. The FAR set forth the basis for the overpayment determination as follows: Medicaid policy defines the varying levels of care and expertise required for the evaluation and management procedure codes for office visits. The documentation you provided supports a lower level of office visit than the one for which you billed and received payment. This determination was made by a peer consultant in accordance with Sections 409.913 and 409.9131, F.S. The difference between the amounts you were paid and the correct payment for the appropriate level of service is considered an overpayment. The FAR also stated that the overpayment calculation was based on a statistical formula by which a random sample of the claims submitted by Leeland was selected and extrapolated to the total number of claims in order to arrive at the amount of the total overpayment: A random sample of 63 recipients respecting whom you submitted 134 claims was reviewed. For those claims in the sample, which have dates of service from March 1, 2009, through August 31, 2011, an overpayment of $308.96 or $2.30567164 per claim, was found. Since you were paid for a total (population) of 26,060 claims for that period, the point estimate of the total overpayment is 26,060 x $2.30567164 = $60,085.80. There is a 50 percent probability that the overpayment to you is that amount or more. We used the following statistical formula for cluster sampling to calculate the amount due the Agency:[1/] All of the claims relating to a recipient represent a cluster. The values of overpayment and number of claims for each recipient in the sample are shown on the attachment entitled “Overpayment Calculation Using Cluster Sampling.” From this statistical formula, which is generally accepted for this purpose, we have calculated that the overpayment to you is $33,111.52 with a ninety-five percent (95%) probability that it is that amount or more. After issuance of the FAR, Leeland provided additional information and documentation to MPI, which conducted a peer review of the new material. AHCA subsequently reduced the alleged overpayments in the sample to $171.38. Overpayments were found on claims involving seven of the 63 recipients.2/ AHCA concluded that this overpayment amounted to 2.45 percent of the total payments of $6,987.99 made to Leeland for the claims in the sample. The overpayment amount of $171.38 was extrapolated to the entire population of claims using the formula set forth above. AHCA concluded that the total amount of overpayments to Leeland for all Medicaid recipients in the population was $12,377.17, with a 95 percent confidence level. This reduction in the alleged overpayment led AHCA to make a proportional reduction in the proposed fine, to $2,475.43. Leeland does not challenge the agency’s conclusion that the actual overpayment found in the sample amounted to $171.38. Leeland does challenge the method by which AHCA used that actual overpayment to extrapolate an overall overpayment amount of $12,377.17 for the entire body of Medicaid claims submitted by Leeland during the audit period. AHCA is required by statute to use an “accepted and valid statistical calculation” to determine Medicaid overpayments. ACHA submitted its audit report and work papers into evidence. To support the validity of the cluster sampling method used in this case, AHCA presented the testimony of Dr. Fred Huffer, a professor in the Statistics Department at Florida State University, as well as the AHCA employees who provided the data to which the formula was applied. Robi Olmstead, supervisor of MPI’s Practitioner Care Unit, testified that Leeland was randomly selected for audit. Once the selection was made, Ms. Olmstead assigned the case to an investigator. Her office applied a computerized claim sampling program to select the recipients and claims to be audited. The program pulled all claims for the provider during the audit period. Ms. Olmstead sorted the claims, selecting only those that were fee-for-service, then generated the “seed” and selected the cluster sample. Ms. Olmstead testified that the program tells her how many recipients should be reviewed to make a statistically valid sample. In Leeland’s case, the program stated that 62.6 recipients should be used, so the number was rounded up to 63. Lisa Robinson, the MPI investigator who handled the Leeland audit, testified that the claim sampling program selected the list of 63 recipients to be audited. Ms. Robinson sent a request for medical records to Leeland. Once Leeland submitted the records for the 63 recipients, Ms. Robinson reviewed the records. The claim sampling program generated a worksheet listing each billed claim for each recipient. Ms. Robinson attached the worksheets to the records and prepared them for the nurse reviewer. The nurse reviewer reviewed and organized the records for a peer review by a physician. After the physician reviewed and determined any disallowed amounts, the records were returned to Ms. Robinson, who entered the disallowed amounts into the claim sampling program to determine the amount of the overpayment. Ms. Olmstead testified that she has no statistical expertise and that she relied on Dr. Huffer to review and validate the results obtained by the claim sampling program. Ms. Robinson likewise claimed no statistical expertise or any real knowledge of how the claim sampling program works. Ms. Robinson simply enters data into the program and accepts the results it generates. Dr. Huffer, who has consulted with MPI since 2004, testified that when he received the overpayment calculation results, he first checked the calculations. Next, he constructed hypothetical populations based on MPI’s sample to test the confidence level of 95 percent asserted in the FAR. Dr. Huffer explained that a confidence level is a probability attached to the correctness of some statement or procedure. The 95 percent confidence level in this case means that if MPI runs its audit procedure repeatedly, the number that it states as the overpayment from a sample of the population will be less than the “true” overpayment in the overall recipient population 95 percent of the time. The “true” overpayment value remains unknown, but the simulations performed by Dr. Huffer lead to a “reasonably confident” conclusion that the assessed overpayment is an underestimate of that “true” value. Dr. Huffer stated that the simplest type of sampling scheme is a simple random sample, in which units are selected at random and audited. He noted that sometimes the units are naturally grouped into clusters, and much sampling effort can be saved by sampling the clusters of units rather than the units individually. In this case, AHCA was interested in auditing a population of claims, but the claims were naturally grouped by recipients. Therefore, to conserve resources, AHCA used single- stage cluster sampling, with each selected resident constituting a cluster of claims to be audited. Dr. Huffer noted the practical advantages of this method: [T]here’s a lot less effort in accessing the records of a smaller number of recipients, and also there’s a lot less effort in making decisions about medical necessity for a small number of recipients versus, say, a large number of recipients. So there’s a lot of savings in sampling effort by doing a cluster sampling based upon clusters, which are the recipients. Dr. Huffer testified that a sample size of 63 was valid, independent of the size of the population from which the sample was taken. He stated that “it is a well-known fact in statistics that it is the sample size which primarily governs the accuracy of the result, not the population size.” He noted, for instance, that a sample size of 35 could be validly used for a population of one million. Dr. Huffer explained that he constructed a hypothetical population that is “like a large scaled-up version of the sample.” He “cloned” every recipient and every claim for all recipients about 208 times to make a hypothetical population of approximately 13,000 recipients. From this population, he sampled 63 recipients at random and performed the same calculation that AHCA did on its sample. He performed the calculation procedure on two million samples of 63 recipients drawn from his hypothetical population. Dr. Huffer’s two million simulations yielded an empirical confidence level of 97.7 percent, meaning that “we’re even more confident in this case that the number we announce as the overpayment is less than the true overpayment . . . in the population.” Dr. Huffer explained the extrapolation of the sample to the population. By taking the $171.38 of total overpayments found in the 134 claims for the population of 63 residents in the sample, MPI derived an average overpayment per sample claim of $1.27.3/ There were 26,060 claims in the entire population. Multiplying the total number of claims by the $1.27 average overpayment yielded a “point estimate” of the total overpayment of a little more than $33,000. Dr. Huffer stated that while the overpayments in the population may be “in the neighborhood” of the point estimate, there is never an expectation that the point estimate will be exactly correct. Every random sample of recipients would yield a somewhat different total. Therefore, a standard error of the overpayment was introduced as an estimate of how far wrong the point estimate might be. The standard error in this case was $12,547.82. The true overpayment could be plus or minus some multiple of the standard error. Dr. Huffer testified that to reach the lower bound of the 95 percent confidence level, MPI subtracted about one and one-half times the standard error from the point estimate to arrive at an overpayment value of $12,377.17. Dr. Huffer concluded that there was “strong evidence” that the true overpayments exceeded $12,377.17, because that figure was an “intentional underestimate.” Counsel for Leeland questioned Dr. Huffer about the validity of the statistically derived overpayment, given that the actual overpayment drawn from the sample, $171.38, was so small compared to the total Medicaid payments for those recipients. Dr. Huffer testified that the 95 percent confidence rate is “totally unrelated” to the magnitude of the actual overpayments. To counter Dr. Huffer’s testimony on the irrelevancy of the size of the actual overpayment to the validity of the sampling method, counsel for Leeland presented a federal Medicare statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1395ddd(f)(3), which provides as follows, in relevant part: Limitation on use of extrapolation A medicare contractor may not use extrapolation to determine overpayment amounts to be recovered by recoupment, offset, or otherwise unless the Secretary determines that— there is a sustained or high level of payment error; or documented educational intervention has failed to correct the payment error . . . . Dr. Huffer responded that the federal statute does not imply that extrapolation is not allowed for statistical reasons. He believed that the reason for the Medicare law’s disallowance of extrapolation in smaller cases could be simply to forgive errors below a certain threshold. Counsel for Leeland offered another example, an “Open Letter to Health Care Providers” issued by the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 2001. The letter sets forth new claims review procedures, including a statement that if the net financial error rate in a discovery sample is below five percent, the provider is not required to perform any further audit work and only the actual identified overpayments must be refunded. Dr. Huffer pointed out that the letter, like the statute, does not question the statistical validity of extrapolation. “They do not give any statistical reason for saying that it would be wrong to proceed in this case. As far as I know, they’re just saying if you [have] a small error rate, we’ll forgive it.” Dr. Huffer agreed that there was not a “sustained or high level of payment error” in this case, but observed that this case was not being decided under the federal Medicare statute. Dr. Huffer opined that the sampling method used in this case was reasonable and comported with generally accepted statistical methods. His opinions and explanation were credible, were unrebutted, and are accepted. Leeland's attempt to undermine Dr. Huffer’s opinions through cross-examination was ineffective and lacked the support of contradictory expert testimony regarding generally accepted statistical methods. AHCA seeks to recover its investigative, legal, and expert witness costs pursuant to section 409.913(23)(a). AHCA has established its right to recover these costs. At the outset of the final hearing, the parties agreed that if AHCA prevailed in the case-in-chief, and was found to be entitled to costs, then this tribunal would retain jurisdiction for the limited purpose of allowing AHCA to document its costs in the manner provided by section 409.913(23)(b).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order requiring Leeland ER SVCS Partnership to repay the sum of $12,377.17 for overpayments on claims that did not comply with the requirements of Medicaid laws, rules, and provider handbooks, including interest. Jurisdiction is retained to determine the amount of costs and attorney's fees, if the parties are unable to agree to the amount, and either party may file a request for a hearing within 30 days after entry of the final order to determine the appropriate amounts. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 11th day of April, 2016.
Findings Of Fact On August 23, 1995, the undersigned entered a Recommended Order in DOAH Case 94-1365. The Petitioner in that proceeding was Billy Beeks, M.D., and the Respondent was the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA). At issue in that proceeding was whether Dr. Beeks had been overpaid by the Medicaid program. The Recommended Order contained extensive findings of fact, including findings as to the appropriate levels at which certain services should have been billed to the Medicaid program by Dr. Beeks. It was concluded that because certain of his services were billed at levels higher than justified by Medicaid protocol, Dr. Beeks had been overpaid by the Medicaid program. Because the calculation of such overpayments are done by computer, it was recommended that the overpayment be recalculated based on the findings of fact contained in the Recommended Order. On October 19, 1995, Douglas M. Cook, Director of AHCA, entered a Final Order in DOAH Case 94-1365. That Final Order adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the Recommended Order and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The dollar amount of the overpayment liability shall be calculated based on the findings and conclusions made by the hearing officer. The amount of the overpayment claimed by AHCA at the beginning of the hearing in DOAH Case 94-1365 was $50,852.56. An overpayment to Medicaid is calculated by computer using a statistical analysis of a sampling of the provider's billings to Medicaid. AHCA asserted that the level at which Dr. Beeks had billed Medicaid for certain of these services in the sample was excessive. It was found in that underlying proceeding that while Dr. Beeks had billed certain of his services at excessive levels as asserted by AHCA, some of the challenged billings were not excessive and others were not as excessive as asserted by AHCA. Logically, one would expect that the recalculation of overpayment would result in a smaller figure than that claimed prior to the hearing. Following the entry of the Final Order, Vickie Givens, an employee of AHCA, made a detailed analysis of the evidence presented at the formal hearing, including the deposition of Joni Leterman, M.D.. Ms. Givens compared her analysis with the findings of fact contained in the Recommended Order and discovered certain billings by Dr. Beeks that she believed should have been included in the Recommended Order as being excessive. 1/ These billings were not included in the Recommended Order and, consequently, were not incorporated by reference into the Final Order. Thereafter the overpayment was recalculated by an appropriately trained AHCA employee. As instructed, this employee included in the recalculation of the overpayment the additional billings for the services identified by Ms. Givens, but not included in the Recommended Order. AHCA staff recalculated the amount of the overpayment to Dr. Beeks to be $51,745.13, which is slightly higher than the amount claimed prior to the hearing in DOAH Case NO. 94-1365. The figure that resulted from this recalculation was higher than it would have been had these additional billings not been included.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and that the Agency recalculate the total amount of the overpayment during the audit period based solely on the findings of fact contained in the Recommended Order in DOAH Case 94-1365. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of July, 1996.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was overpaid by the Medicaid program as set forth in Petitioner's Final Agency Audit Report dated June 12, 2006 for the period January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2004.
Findings Of Fact AHCA audited certain of Dr. Negrette's Medicaid claims pertaining to services rendered between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2004, hereinafter the audit period. Dr. Negrette was an authorized Medicaid provider during the audit period. During the audit period, Dr. Negrette had been issued Medicaid provider number 061422000. No dispute exists that, during the audit period, Dr. Negrette had a valid Medicaid Provider Agreement with AHCA. For services provided during the audit period, Dr. Negrette received in excess $79,523.70 in payments for services to Medicaid recipients. By a preliminary audit report dated August 25, 2005, AHCA notified Dr. Negrette that a preliminary determination was made that he was overpaid by the Medicaid program in the amount of $137,051.25. Subsequently, by a FAR dated June 12, 2006, AHCA notified Dr. Negrette that, after a review of all documentation submitted, it determined that he had been overpaid by the Medicaid program in the amount of $79,523.70, thus, reducing the amount of the overpayment. The FAR further provided how the overpayment was calculated using a sample of the claims submitted during the audit period, including the statistical formula for cluster sampling; and indicated that the statistical formula was generally accepted and that the statistical formula showed an overpayment in the amount of $79,523.70, with a 95 percent probability of correctness. Dr. Negrette agrees that the mathematical computation of the audit is correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order finding that Jesus Negrette, M.D., received overpayments from the Medicaid program in the amount of $79,523.70, during the audit period January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2004, and requiring Jesus Negrette, M.D., to repay the amount of overpayment. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 5th day of February, 2007.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was overpaid by the Florida Medicaid Program and, if so, the amount of the overpayment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent has been the state agency charged with responsibility for overseeing the Florida Medicaid Program, including the recovery of overpayments to Medicaid providers pursuant to Section 409.913, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner was an authorized Medicaid provider, having been issued provider number 377290000. Petitioner had valid Medicaid Provider Agreements with the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) during the Audit Period, which began on January 1, 1996, and ended on May 10, 1999. Petitioner graduated from the University of Puerto Rico School of Medicine in 1987, did an internship at Tulane University, did a residency in internal medicine at Eastern Virginia Graduate Medical School, and did a fellowship in hematology at Washington Hospital Center. He served as Chief of Hematology for Kessler Medical Center in Biloxi, Mississippi, while serving in the United States Air Force (with the rank of major). At the time of the final hearing, Petitioner was licensed to practice medicine in Florida, Virginia, Puerto Rico, and Washington, D.C. At the time of the final hearing, Petitioner was employed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a Medical Officer, Health Scientist Administrator. Petitioner served as an advisor to the director of the NIH on issues related to HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) and AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome). Petitioner’s specialty is internal medicine with a sub- specialty in hematology. Petitioner has extensive experience treating persons suffering with HIV and AIDS dating back to 1987. Pursuant to his Medicaid Provider Agreements, Petitioner agreed to: (1) retain for five years complete and accurate medical records that fully justify and disclose the extent of the services rendered and billings made under the Medicaid program; (2) bill Medicaid only for services or goods that are medically necessary; and (3) abide by the Florida Administrative Code, Florida Statutes, policies, procedures, manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program and Federal laws and regulations. Respondent audited Petitioner’s Medicaid claims during the Audit Period and conducted a peer review of Petitioner’s billings and medical records of 25 of Petitioner’s patients as part of that audit.2 Joseph W. Shands, M.D., conducted the peer review of the documentation provided by Petitioner for purposes of the audit conducted by AHCA. Dr. Shands first reviewed documentation provided by Petitioner in 1999. He had no further participation in the audit until he reviewed information in preparation for his deposition in this proceeding. Dr. Shands graduated from medical school in 1956, trained in internal medicine, and worked as a microbiologist for approximately 15 years. He served as Chief of Infectious Diseases at the University of Florida for 23 years and also treated patients through the Alachua County Public Health Department and Shands Hospital at the University of Florida. Dr. Shands' practice was devoted almost entirely to the treatment of patients diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. Dr. Shands retired from the practice of medicine in May 2002. For three years prior to his retirement, Dr. Shands practiced medicine part-time. Petitioner was sent a Preliminary Agency Audit Report (PAAR) dated May 25, 1999, that found an overpayment in the amount of $862,576.72. In response to that PAAR, Petitioner had the attorney representing him at that time respond to AHCA in writing. The letter from the attorney, dated June 2, 1999, requested a copy of AHCA’s supporting materials and clarification of certain matters. AHCA did not respond. AHCA issued its FAAR on January 22, 2004, asserting that Petitioner was overpaid by the Florida Medicaid Program in the total amount of $261,336.14 for services that in whole or in part were not covered by Medicaid. There was no plausible explanation why the FAAR was not issued until 2004, whereas the audit period ended in 1999. The difference between the amount of the alleged overpayment reflected by the PAAR and the amount of the alleged overpayment reflected by the FAAR is attributable to the use of different methodologies in calculating the amounts overpaid. The FAAR used the correct methodology that was not challenged by Petitioner. The FAAR sets forth five categories of alleged overpayments. Each category accurately describes an overpayment based on applicable Medicaid billing criteria. The five categories are as follows: Medicaid policy specifies how medical records must be maintained. A review of your medical records revealed that some service for which you billed and received payment were not documented. Medicaid requires documentation of the services and considers payments made for services not appropriately documented an overpayment. (For ease of reference, this will be referred to as Category I.) Medicaid policy defines the varying levels of care and expertise required for the evaluation and management procedure codes for office visits. The documentation you provided supports a lower level of office visit than the one for which you billed and received payment. The difference between the amount you were paid and the correct payment for the appropriate level of service is considered an overpayment. (For ease of reference, this will be referred to as Category II.) Medicaid policy addresses the type of pathology services covered by Medicaid. You billed and received payment for laboratory tests that were performed outside your facility by an independent laboratory. Payments made to you in these instances are considered overpayments. (For ease of reference, this will be referred to as Category III.) Medicaid policy requires the Medicaid services be provided by or under the personal supervision of a physician. Personal supervision is defined as the physician being in the building when the services are rendered and signing and dating the medical records within twenty-four hours of service delivery. You billed and received payment for services which your medical records reflect you neither personally provided nor supervised. Payment made to you for all or a part of those services is considered an overpayment. (For ease of reference, this will be referred to as Category IV.) Medicaid policy requires services performed be medically necessary for the diagnosis and treatment of an illness. You billed and received payments for services for which the medical records, when reviewed by a Medicaid physician consultant, indicated that the services provided did not meet the Medicaid criteria for medical necessity. The claims which were considered medically unnecessary were disallowed and the money you were paid for these procedures is considered an overpayment. (For ease of reference, this will be referred to as Category V.) CATEGORY I CLAIMS The disputed Category I claims can be separated into two subcategories: services performed while an employee of a corporate employer and services performed while a recipient was hospitalized. As to both subcategories Petitioner argues that he has been prejudiced by Respondent’s delay in issuing the FAAR because Medicaid requires providers to retain medical records only for five years from the date of service.3 Although Respondent was dilatory in prosecuting this matter, Petitioner’s argument that Respondent should be barred (presumably on equitable grounds such as the doctrine of laches) should be rejected. Petitioner has cited no case law in support of his contention, and it is clear that any equitable relief to which Petitioner may be entitled should come from a court of competent jurisdiction, not from this forum or from an administrative agency. All billings for which there are no medical records justifying the services rendered should be denied. CATEGORY II CLAIMS The following findings as to the Category II claims are based on the testimony of the witnesses and on the information contained in the exhibits.4 Although nothing in the record prior to the final hearing reflects that position, Petitioner did not dispute most of the down-codings at the final hearing. Office visits, whether supported by a doctor’s note or a nurse’s note, for the sole purpose of administering IVIG treatment, will be discussed in the section of this Recommended Order dealing with Category V claims. The office visits, which were for the purpose of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) treatment and for other reimbursable medical services, are set forth as part of the Category II disputes. The following findings resolve the Category II disputes. The date listed is the date the service was rendered. The billing code following the date is the billing code that is supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Recipient 1:5 01-20-98 99213 Recipient 2 09-27-96 99214 10-10-96 99213 11-13-96 99214 12-23-96 99212 02-24-97 99214 04-21-97 99213 04-28-97 99214 05-21-97 99213 06-02-97 99213 07-09-97 99213 07-23-97 99212 08-06-97 99213 08-11-97 99212 10-01-97 99213 10-10-97 99213 10-15-97 99214 10-21-97 99214 11-10-97 99213 12-08-97 99213 12-17-97 99213 12-29-97 99213 01-21-98 99213 Recipient 3 10-21-97 99213 11-04-97 99213 11-25-97 99213 12-16-97 99213 01-27-98 99214 02-26-98 99214 Recipient 4 01-03-98 99254 01-04-98 99261 01-05-98 99261 Recipient 5 09-29-97 99204 Recipient 6 11-11-97 99204 11-18-97 99213 Recipient 7 01-26-98 99204 02-23-98 99213 Recipient 8 09-26-96 99214 09-30-96 99213 10-03-96 99213 10-10-96 99212 10-25-96 99214 11-29-96 99213 12-04-96 99213 12-30-96 99213 01-22-97 99214 01-31-97 99211 02-14-97 99212 03-17-97 99214 04-04-97 99213 04-25-97 99212 05-30-97 99211 07-11-97 99213 08-08-97 99213 08-22-97 99213 09-05-97 99212 09-19-97 99214 10-31-97 99214 11-24-97 99214 12-03-97 99213 12-29-97 99213 01-09-98 99214 01-16-98 99213 01-30-98 99214 02-13-98 99214 Recipient 9 11-24-97 99203 Recipient 10 10-14-96 99205 11-04-96 99213 11-11-96 99213 11-25-96 99214 12-30-96 99213 01-27-97 99214 02-24-97 99214 03-10-97 99213 03-24-97 99212 04-07-97 99213 04-21-97 99214 05-05-97 99212 05-19-97 99213 05-21-97 Deny 06-09-97 99213 07-07-97 99212 08-04-97 99213 08-18-97 99213 09-24-97 992136 10-06-97 99213 10-10-97 99214 10-27-97 99213 11-10-97 99213 11-19-97 99214 11-24-97 99213 12-08-97 99213 02-02-98 99213 Recipient 11 06-30-97 99204 11-06-97 Recipient 12 Deny due to lack of documentation. 10-14-97 99213 11-06-97 99204 11-20-97 99213 12-16-97 99213 01-06-98 99213 Recipient 13 There are no Category II billings at issue for this Recipient. Recipient 14 There are no Category II billings at issue for this Recipient. Recipient 15 09-16-97 992157 Recipient 16 02-19-98 99212 Recipient 17 There are no Category II billings at issue for this Recipient. Recipient 18 There are no Category II billings at issue for this Recipient. Recipient 19 09-27-96 99212 10-01-96 99213 10-10-96 99213 10-23-96 99213 11-06-96 99213 11-20-96 99213 12-18-96 99211 12-30-96 Deny due to lack of 01-09-97 documentation. Deny due to lack of 01-22-97 documentation. 99211 02-05-97 99214 03-05-97 99214 03-19-97 99211 03-24-97 99214 03-26-97 04-02-97 Deny due to lack documentation. 99213 of 04-21-97 99213 05-05-97 99212 05-19-97 99213 06-02-97 99212 06-30-97 99213 07-07-97 99213 07-14-97 99213 07-28-97 99212 08-18-97 99213 08-25-97 99213 09-08-97 99213 09-15-97 99214 09-22-97 99213 10-28-97 99214 11-04-97 11-07-97 Deny due to lack documentation. 99213 of 11-24-97 99213 12-29-97 99213 01-12-98 99213 01-26-98 99213 02-19-98 99214 02-23-98 99213 Recipient 20 12-04-96 99204 12-13-96 99213 01-03-97 99213 01-17-97 99213 01-27-97 99213 02-07-97 99214 02-21-97 99213 03-07-97 99214 03-21-97 99212 04-04-97 99214 04-21-97 99212 05-06-97 99213 06-04-97 99213 06-13-97 99213 06-30-97 99213 07-14-97 99213 08-04-97 99213 01-19-98 99213 Recipient 21 04-29-97 99204 05-13-97 99214 05-16-97 99213 05-23-97 99212 06-09-97 99212 06-23-97 99212 07-11-97 99211 07-25-97 99213 08-11-97 99213 09-10-97 99213 11-05-97 99214 11-19-97 99213 12-22-97 99213 01-07-98 99214 01-21-98 99213 02-04-98 99213 Recipient 22 02-16-98 99205 02-20-98 99213 02-23-98 99213 Recipient 23 06-23-97 99215 10-02-97 992138 Recipient 24 There are no Category II billings at issue for this Recipient. Recipient 25 01-24-97 99213 02-07-97 99213 02-24-97 99212 03-10-97 99213 03-24-97 99212 05-05-97 99212 05-19-97 99212 06-02-97 99212 06-16-97 99212 07-14-97 99213 07-23-97 99212 07-28-97 99213 08-18-97 99213 08-25-97 99213 09-15-97 99213 10-01-97 99213 10-13-97 99213 10-27-97 99214 12-08-97 99213 12-22-97 99213 12-29-97 99213 01-13-98 99212 01-19-98 99214 02-02-98 99212 CATEGORY III As set forth in the Physician Coverage and Limitation Handbook (Respondent’s Exhibit 6), Petitioner is not entitled to billings for laboratory tests that were performed outside his facility by an independent laboratory. The only billing arguably in Category III is the billing for Recipient 1 on February 19, 1998. That billing should have been approved because it was for a urinalysis by dip stick or tablet that was administered and analyzed by Petitioner. It was not analyzed by an independent laboratory. CATEGORY IV All Category IV billings pertained to Petitioner’s supervision of his staff while patients were receiving treatments of IVIG. Those billings will be subsumed in the Category V billings discussion. CATEGORY V The alleged Category V overpayments relate to Petitioner’s IVIG treatment of Patients 2, 8, 10, 19, 20, 21, and 25, each of whom was an adult diagnosed with AIDS. In many of these cases a nurse administered the IVIG treatment. A dispute as to whether Petitioner properly supervised the nurse while he or she administered the IVIG treatment is moot because of the findings pertaining to the IVIG treatments set forth in Paragraphs 20 and 21. The Physician Coverage and Limitations Handbook requires that rendered services be medically necessary, as follows: Medicaid reimburses for services that are determined medically necessary and do not duplicate another provider’s service. In addition, the services must meet the following criteria: the services must be individualized, specific, consistent with symptoms or confirmed diagnosis of the illness or injury under treatment, and not in excess of the recipient’s needs; the services cannot be experimental or investigational; the services must reflect the level of services that can be safely furnished, and for which no equally effective and more conservative or less costly treatment is available statewide; and the services must be furnished in a manner not primarily intended for the convenience of the recipient, the recipient’s caretaker, or the provider. The use of IVIG in adult AIDS patients is not approved by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA). The use of a drug for a purpose other than the uses approved by the FDA is referred to as an “off-label” use. The off-label use of IVIG in adult AIDS patients is not effective either from a medical standpoint or from an economic standpoint. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether any of the Recipients at issue in this proceeding had a medical condition or conditions other than AIDS that would justify the IVIG treatment administered by Petitioner. The following finding resolves that conflict. Utilizing applicable Medicaid billing criteria, the medical records produced by Petitioner fail to document that any of the Recipients at issue in this proceeding had a medical condition or conditions that warranted treatment with IVIG.9 All of Petitioner’s billings for IVIG treatments for Recipients 2, 8, 10, 19, 20, 21, and 25 were properly denied under the rationale of the FAAR’s Category V. Included in the billings that were properly denied were billings for office visits (whether documented by a doctor’s note or a nurse’s note) when the sole purpose of the office visit was the administration of an IVIG treatment.
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 adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Final Order require that Petitioner repay the sum of the overpayment as determined by Respondent’s staff based on the Findings of Fact set forth in this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 20th day of January, 2005.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner was overpaid for Medicaid prescriptions. The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA, Agency or Respondent) asserts the Petitioner, Compscript, Inc., d/b/a Compscript (Petitioner or Compscript) failed to maintain proper records to support and document the Medicaid prescription claims paid by the Agency for the audit period. According to the Agency, the audit findings must be extrapolated to the universe of all claims for the audit period. If so, the Agency maintains the Petitioner should reimburse AHCA for a Medicaid overpayment in the amount of $216,974.07 (this is the “recoupment” amount). The Petitioner denies it was overpaid any amount, asserts it kept records in accordance with applicable laws and regulations governing pharmacy records, and maintains that the Agency may not apply the extrapolation accounting procedure in this case.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Petitioner was a licensed pharmacy authorized to do business in the State of Florida; its pharmacy license number is PH0016271. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Petitioner was authorized to provide Medicaid prescriptions pursuant to a provider agreement with the Respondent. The Petitioner’s Medicaid provider number is 106629300. The terms of the provider agreement govern the contractual relationship between this provider and the Agency. The parties do not dispute that the provider agreement together with the pertinent laws or regulations controls the relationship between the provider and the Agency. The provider agreement pertinent to this case is a voluntary agreement between AHCA and the Petitioner. Pursuant to the provider agreement, the Petitioner was to “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.” In addition to the foregoing, a Medicaid provider must maintain a patient record for each recipient for whom new or refill prescriptions are dispensed. Any Medicaid providers not in compliance with the Medicaid documentation and record retention policies may be subject to the recoupment of Medicaid payments. A Medicaid provider must retain all medical, fiscal, professional, and business records on all services provided to a Medicaid recipient. The records may be kept on paper, magnetic material, film, or other media. However, in order to qualify for reimbursement, the records must be signed and dated at the time of service, or otherwise attested to as appropriate to the media. Rubber stamp signatures must be initialed. The records must be accessible, legible and comprehensive. Specific to the issues of this case, a Medicaid provider must also retain prescription records for five years. The Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility and authority to administer the Medicaid program in Florida. Pursuant to this authority AHCA conducts audits to assure compliance with the Medicaid provisions and provider agreements. These “integrity” audits are routinely performed and Medicaid providers are aware that they may be audited. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Medicaid program in Florida was governed by a “pay and chase” procedure. Under this procedure, the Agency paid Medicaid claims submitted by Medicaid providers and then, after-the-fact, audited such providers for accuracy and quality control. These “integrity” audits are to assure that the provider maintains records to support the paid claims. In this case, the audit period is May 28, 1999 through July 18, 2000. The pertinent audit has been designated AHCA audit no. 01-0514-000-3/H/KNH and was initiated on October 23, 2000. The Petitioner does not dispute the Agency’s authority to perform audits such as the one at issue. The Petitioner maintains its records are sufficient to support the paid claims and that the Agency has unreasonably imposed its interpretation of the requirements. The Medicaid provider agreement that governs this case required that the Petitioner comply with all Medicaid handbooks in effect during the audit period. Essentially, this standard dictates the records that must be kept for quality control so that the after-the-fact audit can verify the integrity of the Medicaid claims that were paid by the Agency. During the audit period the Petitioner sold or dispensed drugs to Medicaid recipients. Equally undisputed is the fact that Medicaid claims were paid by the Agency during the audit period. Each claim reviewed and at issue in this cause was a paid Medicaid claim subject to the Petitioner’s provider agreement and the pertinent regulations. The Agency required that each and every claim submitted by the Petitioner during the audit period under the Medicaid program be filed electronically. Each claim submitted was filed electronically. Nevertheless, the Agency also required the Petitioner to retain records supporting the claim. Additionally, the Petitioner was to make such supporting records available to the Agency upon request. The Agency asked the Petitioner to present its records to support the claims for the audit period. The disclosure of the records proved difficult for this Medicaid provider because it does not operate in a conventional pharmacy setting. More specifically, it operates solely to serve a nursing home population. All of the patients whose prescriptions were filled were nursing home residents. Compscript maintains its manner of doing business is slightly different from the conventional pharmacy. Rather than the walk-in patient who presents a written prescription to be filled, this Petitioner receives its pharmacy orders by telephone or facsimile transmission from nursing homes. Typically, the staff at Compscript takes the call, writes down the pertinent information, enters the data into the pharmacy’s computer system, and the item is dispensed and routed to the nursing home via the delivery driver. All drugs are dispensed in sealed containers and are delivered with a manifest listing all the medications by name and patient. Given the volume of prescriptions being prepared and delivered, for the audit period at issue in this case, the Petitioner made 2-3 trips to the nursing home per day. Once the information for the prescription was entered into the Petitioner’s computer system, Compscript had little interest in maintaining the written telephone message or the facsimile sheet that generated the request. In some instances the Compscript employee did not make a written record of the prescription request. In those instances the employee entered the request directly into the Petitioner’s computer system and bypassed the written step altogether. The Compscript computer system tracks the initials of the pharmacist who entered the prescription information and cannot be altered without such alteration being tracked and noted. Since the pharmacy fills “over the counter” items, as well as controlled and non-controlled pharmacy products, the computer record denotes that information along with the patient information. When the Respondent’s audit agents went into the Compscript facility to audit the Medicaid claims, the Petitioner could not readily produce the written documentation to support the dispensed drugs. In fact, many of the records that verified the prescriptions dispensed were found on the nursing home records. The nursing home patient’s physician order sheet specified the item or items requested for the patient. This “physician order sheet” (POS) should theoretically always support the dispensing of the product from the Petitioner. In this case there were instances when the POS did not corroborate the claim. When the auditors from the Agency presented at Compscript, the Petitioner did not have the POS records to produce. Obviously, those records were maintained within the nursing home. Additionally, Compscript did not have the telephone notes or the facsimile transmission sheets to support items dispensed during the audit period. When the hearing in this cause proceeded it was also discovered that records that were generated daily by the Petitioner’s computer system that would have corroborated the claims (and which were allegedly maintained in storage) were not produced or available to support Medicaid claims submitted during the audit period. During the audit the Agency’s auditors requested records from a random sample of the claims submitted during the audit period. The results from that sample where then applied to the universe of claims for the audit period. When this mathematical calculation was performed the audit produced a Medicaid overpayment in the amount of $1,341,466.27. Afterwards, when the Petitioner was able to locate additional records to correspond to and support the prescriptions dispensed, the amount of overpayment was reduced to $217,715.28 (the amount set forth in the parties’ Pre-hearing Stipulation). At hearing, the Agency maintained that the amount of overpayment was $216,974.07 for which the Petitioner could produce no adequate documentation. At hearing, the Petitioner continued to dispute the procedure of applying the audit sample overpayment to the population of claims to mathematically compute the overpayment for the audit period. This “extrapolation” process was admitted into evidence and has been fully considered in the findings reached in this case. The Petitioner was required to maintain Medicaid- related records for a period of 5 years. Thus, for the audit period in this case, any record supporting the claims should have been maintained and made available for the Agency. Such records would have been within the five-year period. The Agency designates Medicaid compliance to its office of Medicaid Program Integrity. In turn, that office contracted with Heritage Information Systems, Inc. (Heritage) to perform and report pharmacy audits of the numerous pharmacy providers within the state. Auditors from Heritage were assigned the Compscript audit. At the time of the audit the Heritage auditors were not privy to any of the POS documents later produced in the case. Ken Yon is the Agency’s administrator who was responsible for managing the instant case and who worked with the Heritage auditors to assure the policies and practices of the Agency were met. In this case, the Heritage auditors presented at Compscript unannounced on October 23, 2000, and sought 250 randomly selected claims for review. By limiting the number of claims, the auditors were not required to sift through the records of 46,000+ claims (the approximate number of claims that the Petitioner submitted during the audit period). For the universe of 46,000+ claims, 250 randomly selected claims is a reasonable sample to audit. The adequacy of the sample number as well as the manner in which it was generated is supported by the weight of credible evidence presented in this matter. Also, the results of a sample of 250 from the universe of 46,000+ would be statistically valid if randomly chosen as they were in this case. In this regard the testimony of Dr. Mark Johnson, an expert in statistical sampling and analysis, has been deemed credible and persuasive as to the issues of the appropriateness of the sample (as to size and how it was generated), the use of the sample overpayment to calculate an overall payment, and the statistical trustworthiness of the amounts claimed in this cause. If anything, as Dr. Johnson asserted, the actual overpayment would be greater than the recoupment amount sought by the Agency. The Agency has used a statistical extrapolation method to compute overpayments for years. The statistical concept and process of applying a sample to a universe to mathematically compute an overpayment is not novel to this case. After the auditors completed their review of the records at the Compscript pharmacy, Kathryn Holland, a licensed pharmacist (who is also a consulting pharmacist) prepared the Respondent’s Final Agency Audit Report. Prior to completing the report, Ms. Holland received and reviewed the information provided by the Petitioner through the auditors. As a result of the review, a number of “can’t find” conclusions were reached. By “can’t find” the auditors and Ms. Holland meant that the original prescription or refill documentation could not be located for the paid Medicaid claim. These “can’t find” claims were reported to the Petitioner, who was given additional time to locate and produce documents to support the claims. In fact, the Agency continued to accept documentation for claims up through the time of hearing. Consequently, the amount sought for overpayment has been substantially reduced. Whether the Agency had the authority to accept documents outside the prescription records maintained by the pharmacy is not an issue. In fact, the Agency did reduce the overpayment amount when subsequent supporting documents were located. A second error in the documentation for the Petitioner’s prescriptions was noted as “no doctor’s address on the prescription.” That expression meant that pursuant to state and federal law the physician’s address is required for a controlled substance and when it was not provided the auditor deemed the documentation incomplete. Although the Petitioner maintained doctor addresses in its computer system, the records did not correspond to the specific prescriptions that were filled for the audited claims. In order to stand as a sufficient prescription form, a writing must be created contemporaneous to the order (phone requests that are transcribed are acceptable), must contain specific information (type of drug, strength, dose, patient, doctor, DEA number, refill, etc.), and it must be kept for the requisite time. It would be acceptable for the prescription to be computer generated so long as it was written contemporaneous to the order and preserved as required by law. In this case, at the conclusion of the audit, the Agency identified 194 discrepant claims within the random sample of 250. The vast majority of those discrepancies were noted as “can’t find.” Had the Agency not accepted other documentation to support the dispensing of the drugs, the calculated overpayment would have been $1,575,707.44. Applying a lower confidence limit of 95 percent to that amount generated the calculated overpayment of $1,341,466.27. The audit findings set forth in the Agency’s Final Agency Audit Report (dated April 6, 2001) is supported by the weight of credible evidence in this case. Nevertheless, the Agency did allow the provider here to supplement the documentation disclosed during the audit. And, to that end, the calculated overpayment was reduced to $216,974.07 (this amount is 95% of the calculated overpayment). In reality, the amount owed by this Petitioner for failure to maintain proper documentation for this audit would be greater than the recoupment amount sought by the Agency. Had the Agency held the Petitioner to a standard of “no prescription, no payment” standard arguably 194 of the 250 audited claims could have been disallowed. That is not the standard applied by the Agency. A “patient record” may include information regarding the patient’s prescription history. The terms “patient record” and “prescription” are not synonymous. For example, while a prescription would contain information such as patient's name, doctor, DEA number, doctor's address, dosage, drug, and whether it may be refilled, it would be expected that the “patient record” would contain additional information not typically found on a prescription. For instance, a “patient record” might contain a historical track of past medications or known patient allergies. In this case, the computer records or “patient records” maintained by the Petitioner did not retain the prescriptions in the format dictated by rule. An electronic imaging recording system may be used when the system captures, stores, and can reproduce the exact image of the prescription, including the reverse side of the prescription if necessary. The Petitioner’s system did not do that. An electronic system must be able to produce a daily hard-copy printout of all original prescriptions dispensed and refilled. If the Petitioner’s system could do that, it did not. An acceptable electronic system must generate the prescription contemporaneous to the dispensing order. The Petitioner’s system did not do that. The Agency has not alleged, and there is no evidence to suggest, fraud in the Petitioner’s failure to maintain its records. The Agency’s interpretation of the requirement that a prescription be reduced to writing is consistent with the rules and regulations in effect at the time of this audit. The last category of discrepant items was “UR” which stood for “unauthorized refills.” These were claims for refills on drugs for which the original prescription could not be located or documentation from the nursing home could not be found. Again, the Petitioner the maintained that within the nursing home setting a physician’s reorder for medications for the patient could be found on the POS. These refill requests were handled orally among the physician, the nursing home staff, and the pharmacy. Nevertheless, because they were not documented in writing the Agency disallowed this claims and included them among the discrepant list. If the Petitioner was able to produce a physician order to support the UR claims, it was removed from the recoupment list. In most instances, the Petitioner did not have the requisite paperwork to support the refill. Instead, the Petitioner relied on its computer records (again not kept in accordance with the applicable standards) to support the UR claims. The Agency has not claimed that the refills were not dispensed, merely that the paperwork to support the claim cannot be produced.
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 that accepts an amended Final Agency Action Report to support an overpayment and recoupment against the Petitioner in the amount of $216,974.07. S DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 L. William Porter, II, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Executive Center III 2727 Mahan Drive, Building 3, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Kenneth W. Sukhia, Esquire Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1090 Post Office Box 11240 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ralph E. Breitfeller, Esquire McGrath & Breitfeller, LLP 140 East Town Street, Suite 1070 Columbus, Ohio 43215
