The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was overpaid by the Medicaid program as indicated in Respondent's Final Agency Audit Report dated June 20, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Henson was an authorized Medicaid provider during the audit period of January 1, 1998 through September 30, 2000.1 During the audit period, Dr. Henson had been issued Medicaid provider number 0467243-00.2 No dispute exists that, during the audit period, Dr. Henson had a valid Medicaid Provider Agreement(s) with AHCA.3 During the audit period, Dr. Henson was employed by Latin Quarter Medical Center, located at 855 Southwest 8th Street, Miami, Florida, at which he treated Medicaid recipients. Dr. Henson had been a surgeon but had suffered a stroke in December 1997, which caused him to be incapable of continuing to practice as a surgeon. He agreed to become employed with Latin Quarter Medical Center to work at its new clinic and to receive compensation for his services every two weeks. Latin Quarter Medical Center's patients were suffering from AIDS. Dr. Henson agreed to several terms and conditions in executing a Medicaid Provider Agreement (Agreement) with AHCA. Those terms and conditions included the following: Quality of Service. The provider agrees to provide medically necessary services or goods . . . agrees that services and goods billed to the Medicaid program must be medically necessary . . . The services and goods must have been actually provided to eligible Medicaid recipients by the provider prior to submitting the claim. Compliance. The provider agrees to comply with all local, state and federal laws, rules, regulation, licensure laws, Medicaid bulletins, manuals, handbooks and Statements of Policy as they may be amended from time to time. Term and signatures This provider agreement . . . shall remain in effect until July 1, 1999, unless otherwise terminated. . . . Provider Responsibilities. The Medical provider shall: * * * (b) Keep and maintain . . . all medical and Medicaid related records as the Agency may require and as it determines necessary; make available for state and federal audits for five years, complete and accurate medical . . . records that fully justify and disclose the extent of the goods and services rendered and billings made under the Medicaid. . . . The Agreement was signed by Dr. Henson in 1996. In a Noninstitutional Professional and Technical Medicaid Provider Agreement, Dr. Henson agreed to terms and conditions including the following: The provider agrees to keep complete and accurate medical . . . records that fully justify and disclose the extent of the services rendered and billings made under the Medicaid program . . . . The provider agrees that services or goods billed to the Medicaid program must be medically necessary . . . and the services and goods must have been actually provided to eligible Medicaid recipients by the provider prior to submitting a claim. The provider agrees to submit Medicaid claims in accordance with program policies and that payment by the program for services rendered will be based on the payment methodology in the applicable Florida Administrative Rule. . . . * * * 8. The provider and the Department [Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services] agree to abide by the provisions of the Florida Administrative Code, Florida Statutes, policies, procedures, manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program and Federal laws and regulations. The Agreement was signed by Dr. Henson in 1988. AHCA audited certain of Dr. Henson's Medicaid claims pertaining to services rendered between January 1, 1998 and September 30, 2000. By Preliminary Agency Audit Report (PAAR) dated April 12, 2001, AHCA notified Dr. Henson that, after a physician consultant with a specialty in infectious disease reviewed the Medical claims and medical records provided by Dr. Henson, a preliminary determination was made that certain claims in the amount of $124,556.83 were not covered by Medicaid. After the issuance of the PAAR, no further documentation was submitted by Dr. Henson to AHCA. As a result, AHCA issued a FAAR dated June 20, 2001, upholding the overpayment of $124,556.83. The FAAR indicated, among other things, that the documentation provided by Dr. Henson supported a lower level of office visit than the one billed and for which payment was received and, therefore, the difference between the payment for the appropriate level of service and the amount actually paid was an overpayment; that some of Dr. Henson's medical records failed to contain documentation for services which were billed and for which payment was made and, therefore, the payments for the inappropriate documentation was an overpayment; that some of the services rendered were inappropriately coded and the difference between payment for the proper code and the inappropriate code was an overpayment; and that some of the services for which billing was made and payment received were not medically necessary and those services were disallowed and were, therefore, an overpayment. The FAAR further provided how the overpayment was calculated, indicating, among other things, that a sample of 30 recipients of the 2936 claims submitted by Dr. Henson were reviewed for the period from January 1, 1998 through September 30, 2000; that a statistical formula for cluster sampling, with the formula being presented, was used; that the statistical formula was generally accepted; and that the statistical formula showed an overpayment in the amount of $124,556.83, with a 95 percent probability of correctness. The majority of the overpayment was due to denied claims for intravenous infusions of multi-vitamins, epogen and nupogen to adult HIV/AIDS patients. AHCA's representative primarily responsible for handling the audit of Dr. Henson was Sharon Dewey, a registered nurse employed in the Medicaid Program Integrity (MPI) division of AHCA. Nurse Dewey conducted an audit of Medicaid payments only under Dr. Henson's Medicaid Provider number. An on-site visit of Dr. Henson's office was made by Nurse Dewey. During the on-site visit, she provided Dr. Henson with a questionnaire, which was completed by her and signed by Dr. Henson, and which indicated that Dr. Henson was the only Medicaid Provider at the office at which he was located, Latin Quarter Medical Center, 855 Southwest 8th Street, Miami, Florida. At the on-site visit, Dr. Henson provided all of the medical documentation and medical recipient records for the audit period involved. All the Medicaid claims for the medical recipients were paid Medicaid claims originating only from Dr. Henson's Medical Provider number. Dr. Henson made available and provided to AHCA or AHCA's representatives any and all required Medicaid-related records and information pertaining to the audit that he had in his possession.4 He never refused to allow access to the records or information. Having received the medical recipient records from Dr. Henson, Nurse Dewey organized the records by patient names and dates of service and provided them to Dr. Joseph W. Shands, Jr., along with a worksheet for the audited claims for each patient. Dr. Shands is an expert in infectious diseases and the treatment and management of AIDS and HIV. Dr. Shands retired in 2002, and his practice was basically the same as Dr. Henson. No objection was made at hearing that Dr. Shands met the statutory definition of "peer." § 409.9131(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1999).5 The undersigned finds Dr. Shands' testimony persuasive. Dr. Shands reviewed the medical documentation provided by Dr. Henson to AHCA. The medical documentation that he reviewed indicated that the patients were "all HIV AIDS patients." Dr. Shands reviewed the particular medications given the patients; reviewed the reasons why the medications were given; considered and made a determination as to whether a justification existed for the administration of the medication; and, based on his determination, either allowed or disallowed the claim. He made no determinations as to the actual dollar amount of services provided. After reviewing the medical records, Dr. Shands made notations on the worksheets, signed the worksheets, and returned the worksheets to Nurse Dewey. Specific instances of acute attention involved the administration of intravenous (IV) multi-vitamins, epogen, nupogen, and Intravenous Immunoglobulin (IVIG). As to the IV of multi-vitamins, Dr. Henson prescribed this administration for almost all of his patients. Dr. Shands found that the patients were coming into the facility two to three times a week for the treatment, but he found no documented medical information to justify the use of IV multi-vitamins and determined these services were not medically necessary. In Dr. Shands' opinion an oral multi-vitamin would have been more appropriate and achieved the same result. An oral multi-vitamin is not recommended, according to Dr. Shands, where the patient is unable to digest the oral multi-vitamin. Notably, for one patient a notation was made that the patient refused pills, but a further notation indicated that Dr. Henson had prescribed the same patient pill-based medications for treatment, which negated the basis for the intravenous use. Furthermore, IV administration to an HIV/AIDS patient places the patient at an unnecessary risk of infection, which is not present with oral multi-vitamins. Dr. Henson testified that he was continuing the treatment of another physician, but he failed to make an independent medical judgment based upon his own medical findings. Further, no justification was in the medical records for the former physician's administration of IV multi-vitamins. Additionally, IV multi-vitamins were more costly than oral administration. And, with patients returning to the facility two to three times a week, the cost increased even more. Regarding epogen, Dr. Shands opined that certain administration was not medically necessary for the HIV/AIDS' patients. As to nupogen, Dr. Shands opined that certain administration was not medically necessary for the HIV/AIDS' patients. Regarding the administration of IVIG, Dr. Shands opined that the administration was not medically necessary for the HIV/AIDS' patients. As to certain office visits for the administration of IV multi-vitamins, epogen, nupogen, and IVIG, Dr. Shands opined that the office visits were unnecessary. Using the worksheets, with Dr. Shands' notations on them, together with Dr. Shands denials or reductions, Nurse Dewey calculated the overpayment associated with each of Dr. Henson's patients. Subsequently, a statistical calculation was applied by AHCA to extend the audit sample's total overall payment to all of Dr. Henson's Medicaid claims during the audit period, which resulted in a determination of an overpayment in the amount of $124,556.83. Dr. Henson suggests that his signature may have been falsified or forged on the medical records and information that he submitted to AHCA for its audit. Prior to hearing, he had an opportunity to review the medical records and information but could not identify one instance that his signature was falsified or forged. Consequently, a finding of fact is made that Dr. Henson signed the medical records and documentation provided to AHCA by him for the audit. Dr. Henson presented no expert testimony or any testimony to support the medical necessity or cost-effectiveness of the procedures that he used. Further, Dr. Henson contends that Latin Quarter Medical Center, the facility that employed him, received the Medicaid payments, not he. However, as the Medicaid Provider, he was not relieved of his responsibility to make sure that the medical procedures were medically necessary and cost-effective.
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 Arthur Henson, D.O., received overpayments in the Medicaid program in the amount of $124,556.83, during the audit period January 1, 1998 through September 30, 2000, and requiring Arthur Henson, D.O., to repay the overpayment amount. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2006, 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 29th day of June, 2006.
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (Petitioner) is entitled to recover certain Medicaid payments made to Cape Memorial Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Cape Coral Hospital (Respondent).
Findings Of Fact Title XIX of the Social Security Act establishes Medicaid as a collaborative federal-state program in which the state receives federal funding (also known as “federal financial participation” or “FFP") for services provided to Medicaid- eligible recipients in accordance with federal law. The Florida statutes and rules relevant to this proceeding essentially incorporate federal Medicaid standards. The Petitioner is the state agency charged with administering the Medicaid provisions relevant to this proceeding. Section 409.902, Florida Statutes (2015)1/, states that the Petitioner is the “single state agency authorized to make payments” under the Medicaid program. The referenced statute limits such payments to “services included in the program” and only on “behalf of eligible individuals.” The Respondent is enrolled in the Florida Medicaid Program as a Medicaid Hospital Provider. The Respondent's participation in the Florida Medicaid Program is subject to the terms of a Medicaid Provider Agreement. The Respondent's Medicaid Provider Agreement requires compliance with all state and federal laws governing the Medicaid program, including the state and federal laws limiting Medicaid payments for services provided to undocumented aliens. Eligibility for Medicaid services is restricted to United States citizens, and to specified non-citizens who have been lawfully admitted into the United States. Pursuant to section 409.902(2)(b), Medicaid funds cannot be used to provide medical services to individuals who do not meet the statutory eligibility criteria "unless the services are necessary to treat an emergency medical condition" or are for pregnant women. The cited statute further provides that such services are “authorized only to the extent provided under federal law.” The relevant federal law (42 U.S.C. section 1396b(v)(3)) defines an "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. The Florida definition of “emergency medical condition” set forth at section 409.901(10)(a) mirrors the federal definition. Pursuant to section 409.904(4), the Petitioner can make payments to a Medicaid provider on behalf of "a low-income person who meets all other requirements for Medicaid eligibility except citizenship and who is in need of emergency medical services" for “the period of the emergency, in accordance with federal regulations." The Florida Medicaid program requirements relevant to this proceeding were identified in the Florida Hospital Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook (incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-4.160(2),), and in the Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook (incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-5.020.) The applicable Florida Hospital Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook provided 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. Similar provisions were contained in the Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook. Section 409.913 requires that the Petitioner monitor the activities of Medicaid providers and to “recover overpayments.” The Petitioner’s Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity (BMPI) routinely conducts audits to monitor Medicaid providers. 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 BMPI conducted a review of the Respondent's claims for services rendered to undocumented aliens during the period January 1 through December 31, 2006. The Respondent provided all documentation requested by the Petitioner necessary to review the claims addressed herein. As to each claim, the designated reviewing physician made a determination, based on the medical records, as to whether the claim was related to an emergency medical condition, and, if so, when the emergency medical condition was alleviated. Based on the evidence, and on the testimony of the physicians identified herein, the determinations of the physicians are fully credited as to the existence of emergency medical conditions and as to when such conditions were alleviated. CLAIM #1 Dr. Thomas Wells reviewed Claim #1, which involved a length of stay from March 31 through April 10, 2006. Based upon his review of the medical records, Dr. Wells determined that an emergency medical condition existed on March 31, 2006, and that it had been alleviated as of April 6, 2006. CLAIM #3 Dr. Michael Phillips reviewed Claim #3, which involved a length of stay from May 27 through June 12, 2006. Based upon his review of the medical records, Dr. Phillips determined that an emergency medical condition existed on May 27, 2006, and that it had been alleviated as of May 28, 2006. CLAIM #4 Dr. Michael Phillips reviewed Claim #4, which involved a length of stay from January 15 through January 20, 2006. Based upon his review of the medical records, Dr. Phillips determined that an emergency medical condition existed on January 15, 2006, and that it had been alleviated as of January 17, 2006. CLAIM #5 Dr. Michael Phillips reviewed Claim #5, which involved a length of stay from March 4 through April 10, 2006. Based upon his review of the medical records, Dr. Phillips determined that an emergency medical condition existed on March 4, 2006, and that it had been alleviated as of March 7, 2006. CLAIM #6 Dr. Steve Beiser reviewed Claim #6, which involved a length of stay from June 15 through June 18, 2006. Based upon his review of the medical records, Dr. Beiser determined that an emergency medical condition existed on June 15, 2006, and that it had been alleviated as of June 16, 2006. CLAIM #7 Dr. Thomas Wells reviewed Claim #7, which involved a length of stay from June 15 through July 6, 2006. Based upon his review of the medical records, Dr. Wells determined that the emergency medical condition existed on June 15, 2006, and that it had been alleviated as of June 28, 2006.
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 a Medicaid overpayment of $57,350.67 related to the six claims identified herein. Pursuant to section 409.913(23), Florida Statutes, the Petitioner is entitled to recover certain investigative, legal, and expert witness costs. Jurisdiction is retained to determine the amount of appropriate costs if the parties are unable to agree. Within 30 days after entry of the final order, either party may file a request for a hearing on the amount. Failure to request a hearing within 30 days after entry of the final order shall be deemed to indicate that the issue of costs has been resolved. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 July, 2016.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner received a Medicaid overpayment for claims paid during the audit period, August 1, 1997, through August 25, 1999, and if so, what is the amount that Petitioner is obligated to reimburse to Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program. One of its duties is to recover Medicaid overpayments from physicians providing care to Medicaid recipients. Petitioner is a licensed psychiatrist and an authorized Medicaid provider. His Medicaid provider number is No. 048191200. Chapter Three of the Limitations Handbook describes the procedure codes for reimbursable Medicaid services that physicians may use in billing for services to eligible recipients. The procedure codes are Health Care Financing Administration Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS), Levels 1-3. The procedure codes are based on the Physician's Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) book, published by the American Medical Association. The CPT book, includes HCPCS descriptive terms, numeric identifying codes, and modifiers for reporting services and procedures. The Limitations Handbook further provides that Medicaid reimburses physicians using specific CPT codes. The CPT codes are listed on Medicaid's physician fee schedule. The CPT book includes a section entitled Evaluation and Management (E/M) Services Guidelines. The E/M section classifies medical services into broad categories such as office visits, hospital visits, and consultations. The categories may have subcategories such as two types of office visits (new patient and established patient) and two types of hospital visits (initial and subsequent). The subcategories of E/M services are further classified into levels of E/M services that are identified by specific CPT codes. The classification is important because the nature of a physician's work varies by type of service, place of service, and the patient's status. According to the CPT book, the descriptors for the levels of E/M services recognize seven components, six of which are used in defining the levels of E/M services. They are history, examination, medical decision making, counseling, coordination of care, nature of presenting problem, and time. The most important components in selecting the appropriate level of E/M services are history, examination, and medical decision making. However, since 1992, the CPT book has included time as an explicit factor in selecting the most appropriate level of E/M services. At all times relevant here, Petitioner provided services to Medicaid patients pursuant to a valid Medicaid provider agreement. Therefore, Petitioner was subject to all statutes, rules and policy guidelines that govern Medicaid providers. The Medicaid provider agreement clearly gives a Medicaid provider the responsibility to maintain medical records sufficient to justify and disclose the extent of the goods and services rendered and billings made pursuant to Medicaid policy. This case involves Respondent's Medicaid audit of claims paid to Petitioner for Medicaid psychiatric services during the audit period August 1, 1997, through August 25, 1999 (the audit period). Petitioner provided these services to his Medicaid patients, which constituted approximately 85 to 90 percent of his practice, at his office and at hospitals in the Jacksonville, Florida, area. During the audit period, Petitioner billed Medicaid for services furnished under the following CPT codes and E/M levels of service: (a) 99215, office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient; (b) 99223, initial hospital care per day for the evaluation and management of a patient; (c) 99232, subsequent hospital care per day for the evaluation and management of a patient; (d) 99233, subsequent hospital care per day for the evaluation and management of a patient; (e) 99238, hospital discharge day management; (f) 99254, initial inpatient consultation for a new or established patient; and (g) 90862, other psychiatric service or procedures, pharmacologic management. Except for CPT code 90862, the E/M levels of services billed by Petitioner require either two or all three of the key components as to history, examination, and medical decision- making. The CPT book assigns a typical amount of time that physicians spend with patients for each level of E/M service. The CPT book contains specific psychiatric CPT codes. CPT codes 90804-90815 relate to services provided in the office or other outpatient facility and involve one of two types of psychotherapy. CPT codes 90816-90829 relate to inpatient hospital, partial hospital, or residential care facility involving different types of psychotherapy. CPT codes 90862- 90899 relate to other psychiatric services or procedures. CPT code 90862 specifically includes pharmacologic or medication management; including prescription, use, and review of medication with no more than minimal medical psychotherapy. CPT code 90862 is the only psychiatric procedure code that Petitioner used in billing for the psychiatric services he provided. CPT code 90862 does not have specific requirements as to history, examination, and medical decision-making or a specified amount of time. Most of Petitioner's hospital patients were admitted to the hospital for psychiatric services through the emergency room. As part of the admission process, Petitioner performed psychiatric and physical examinations. However, testimony at hearing that Petitioner generally performed the psychiatric evaluations and the physical examinations on separate days is not persuasive. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that the hospital physical examinations were conducted as part of the routine admission process and appropriately included in claims for the patients' initial hospital care. Some of Petitioner's hospital patients had complicated conditions. Some patients required crisis intervention and/or lacked the ability to perform activities of daily living. The initial hospital care of new hospital patients required Petitioner to take an extensive medical and psychiatric history. Petitioner attended his hospital patients on a daily basis. However, there is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner routinely spent 20-25 minutes with his hospital patients for each subsequent daily visit until the day of discharge. Petitioner used a team approach when attending his hospital patients. On weekdays, the team consisted of Petitioner, a social worker, a music therapist, and the floor nurses. On weekends, Petitioner generally made his rounds with the floor nurses. Petitioner's use of the team approach to treat hospital patients did not change the level of service he provided in managing their medication. Petitioner did not document the time he spent with patients during hospital visits. However, his notations as to each of these visits indicate that, excluding admissions and discharges, the hospital visits routinely involved medication management. Petitioner's testimony that his treatment during subsequent hospital visits involved more than mere medication management is not persuasive. Petitioner also failed to document the time he spent with patients that he treated at his office. He did not present his appointment books as evidence to show the beginning and ending time of the appointments. Petitioner's notes regarding each office visit reflect a good bit of thought. However, without any notation as to time, the office progress notes are insufficient to determine whether Petitioner provided a level of service higher than medication management for established patients. Petitioner and his office manager agreed in advance that, unless Petitioner specified otherwise, every office visit for an established patient would be billed as if it required two of the following: a comprehensive history; a comprehensive examination; and a medical decision making of high complexity. With no documented time for each appointment, Petitioner's records do not reflect that he provided a level of service higher than medication management for the office visits of established patients. Petitioner's testimony to the contrary is not persuasive. Petitioner treated some patients at their place of residence in an adult congregate living facility (ACLF). Respondent does not pay for psychiatric services in such facilities. Instead of entirely denying the claims for ACLF patients, Respondent gave Petitioner credit for providing a lower level of service in a custodial care facility. Sometime in 1999, Respondent made a decision to audit Petitioner's paid claims for the period of time at issue here. After making that decision, Respondent randomly selected the names of 30 Medicaid patients that Petitioner had treated. The 30 patients had 282 paid claims that were included in the "cluster sample." Thereafter, Respondent's staff visited Petitioner's office, leaving a Medicaid provider questionnaire and the list of the 30 randomly selected patients. Respondent's staff requested copies of all medical records for the 30 patients for the audit period. Petitioner completed the Medicaid questionnaire and sent it to Respondent, together with all available medical records for the 30 patients. The medical records included Petitioner's progress notes for office visits. Petitioner did not send Respondent all of the relevant hospital records for inpatient visits. The original hospital records belonged to the hospitals where Petitioner provided inpatient services. Petitioner had not maintained copies of all of the hospital records even though Medicaid policy required him to keep records of all services for which he made Medicaid claims. When Respondent received Petitioner's records, one of Respondent's registered nurses, Claire Balbo, reviewed the records to determine whether Petitioner had provided documentation to support each paid claim. Ms. Balbo made handwritten notes on the records of claims that were not supported by documentation. Ms. Balbo reviewed the documentation in the records between February 10, 2000, and March 7, 2000. Next, one of Respondent's investigators, Art Williams, reviewed the records. Mr. Williams made his review on or about January 23, 2001. In some instances, Mr. Williams changed some of Petitioner's CPT codes from an inappropriate hospital inpatient or office visit procedure code to a psychiatric procedure code with a lower reimbursement rate. Additionally, Mr. Williams noted Petitioner's visits in ACLF's that, according to Medicaid policy, were not reimbursable. Finally, Mr. Williams noted that Petitioner occasionally made several claims on one line of the claim form contrary to Medicaid policy. Mr. Williams made these changes to the CPT codes based on applicable Medicaid policy. His review of the audit documents and patient records did not involve a determination as medical necessity or the appropriate level of service. A peer reviewer makes determinations as to medical necessity and the appropriate level of service for each paid claim in the random sample of 30 patients. Respondent then sent the records to Dr. Melody Agbunag, a psychiatrist who conducted a peer review of Petitioner's records. Dr. Agbunag's primary function was to determine whether the services that Petitioner provided were medically necessary and, if so, what the appropriate level of service was for each paid claim. Dr. Agbunag conducted the peer review between June 8, 2001, and August 29, 2001. She agreed with Respondent's staff regarding the adjustments to the procedure codes that corresponded with the level of service reflected in the medical records. When Dr. Agbunag returned the records to Respondent, Ms. Balbo calculated the monetary difference between the amount that Medicaid paid Petitioner for each claim and the amount that Medicaid should have paid based on Dr. Agbunag's review. The difference indicated that Respondent had overpaid Petitioner for claims that in whole or in part were not covered by Medicaid. Respondent sent Petitioner a Preliminary Agency Audit Report (PAAR) dated December 27, 2001. The PAAR stated that Petitioner had been overpaid $54,595.14. The PAAR stated that Petitioner could furnish additional information or documentation that might serve to reduce the overpayment. Petitioner responded to the PAAR in a letter dated February 28, 2001. According to the letter, Petitioner challenged the preliminary determinations in the PAAR and advised that he was waiting on additional patient records from a certain hospital. In a letter dated June 30, 2002, Petitioner advised Respondent that he generally spends 15-20 minutes with his hospital inpatients. The letter does not refer to any additional hospital records. Petitioner's office manager sent Respondent a letter dated August 1, 2002. The letter discusses every service that Petitioner provided to the 30 patients during the audit period. Some of these services were not included in the random "cluster sample" because Medicaid had not paid for them during the audit period. According to the August 1, 2002, letter, Petitioner's office manager attached some of the patient records that Petitioner had not previously provided to Respondent. The additional documentation related to multiple claims involving several of Petitioner's hospital and office patients. Sometime after receiving the additional documentation, Dr. Agbunag conducted another peer review. She did not change her prior determination regarding the level of service as to any paid claim. In 2003, Vicki Remick, Respondent's investigator, reviewed the audit, the patient records, and all correspondence. Her review included, but was not limited to, the determination of the appropriate CPT code and amount of reimbursement, taking into consideration Medicaid policy and Dr. Agbunag's findings regarding medical necessity and the level of care for each paid claim. On or about October 1, 2003, Respondent issued the Final Agency Audit Report (FAAR). The FAAR informed Petitioner that he had been overpaid $39,055.34 for Medicaid claims that, in whole or in part, were not covered by Medicaid. The FAAR included a request for Petitioner to pay that amount for the overpayment. The FAAR concluded, as to some patients, that Petitioner's documentation did not support the CPT codes that Petitioner used to bill and that Respondent used to pay for services. Thus, Respondent "down graded" the billing code to a lesser amount. As a result, the difference between the amount paid and the amount that should have been paid was an overpayment. The FAAR also stated that Petitioner billed and received payment for some undocumented services. In each such instance, Respondent considered the entire amount paid as an overpayment. The FAAR indicated that Petitioner billed Medicaid for some services at acute care hospital psychiatric units without documenting the medical records as to the appropriate CPT codes and medical illness diagnosis codes. Respondent adjusted the payments for these services to the appropriate psychiatric CPT codes. According to the FAAR, Petitioner billed and received payment for services which only allowed one unit of service per claim line. For this audit, Respondent allowed charges for the additional units of service where Petitioner's documentation for the additional dates of service supported the services allowed by the peer reviewer. The FAAR stated that Petitioner billed for psychiatric services at an ACLF or an assisted living facility. Medicaid normally does not pay for such services. However, in this case, Respondent adjusted the claims to a domiciliary or custodial care visit. Sometime after Petitioner received the FAAR, Petitioner sent Respondent some additional patients' medical records. Some of the records were duplicates of documents that Petitioner previously had furnished to Respondent. Other records were for services that may have been provided during the audit period but which were not a part of the random sample because Medicaid did not pay for them during relevant time frame. Respondent requested Dr. James R. Edgar to conduct a second peer review of Petitioner's correspondence and patient records to determine the appropriate level of service. Respondent provided Dr. Edgar with a copy of the patients' medical records, a copy of Respondent's worksheets, including Dr. Agbunag's notes, and the appropriate policy handbooks. Respondent requested Dr. Edgar to make changes in the level of service as he deemed appropriate. Dr. Edgar performed his review between July 25, 2004, and July 29, 2004, making an independent determination regarding issues of medical necessity and level of care. Initially, as to every disputed paid claim, Dr. Edgar agreed with Dr. Agbunag that Petitioner's patient records were insufficient to justify the procedure code and higher level of service claimed by Petitioner. Specifically, Dr. Edgar presented persuasive evidence that a number of paid claims, which Petitioner billed under CPT codes 99215, 99223, 99232, 99233, and 99238, were properly adjusted to CPT code 90862. Petitioner was not entitled to bill at a higher level of reimbursement because he failed to adequately document as to history, examination, medical decision-making, and time. Dr. Edgar agreed that, upon reconsideration, Petitioner's claim for Recipient 14, date of service September 7, 1998, billed under CPT code 99238, was appropriate. As to Recipient 1, date of service March 9, 1999, Petitioner was not entitled to bill for services using CPT code 99255, initial inpatient consultation for a new or established patient. CPT code 99222, initial hospital care, per day, for the E/M of a new or established patient, was more appropriate because Petitioner provided the consultation for one of his established patients. His services included a comprehensive history, a comprehensive examination, and medical decision making of moderate complexity. An independent analysis of the selection of the random sample, the statistical formula used by Respondent, and the statistical calculation used to determine the overpayment, confirms the conclusions in the FAAR. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent properly extrapolated the results from the sample to the total population. Out of a population of 222 recipients and a population of 2,123 claims, 30 recipients selected at random with 282 paid claims capture most of the characteristics of the total population. In this case, the statistical evidence indicates that 29 of the 30 recipients had overpayments. The odds that 29 out of 30 randomly selected recipients would have overpayments, if no overpayments existed, are greater than the odds of winning the Florida Lotto Quick Pick three weeks in a row. In fact, within a statistical certainly, the amount claimed in this cause based on the records of 30 recipients is lower than the reimbursement amount that Petitioner would owe if all records were reviewed. Respondent incurred costs during the investigation of this matter. The amount of those costs was not known at the time of the formal hearing.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order finding that Petitioner owes Respondent for an overpayment in the amount of $39,055.34, less an adjustment for the September 7, 1998 claim for Recipient 14, plus interest. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 25th day of March, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Alan Levine, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Know Building III 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Debora E. Fridie, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Mail Station 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 John D. Buchanan, Jr., Esquire Henry, Buchanan, Hudson, Suber & Carter, P.A. 117 South Gadsden Street Post Office Box 1049 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Emergency Rule 10CER92-4 should be invalidated because it constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Medicaid program is a program authorized under Title XIX of the federal Social Security Act that provides for payments for medical items or services for eligible recipients. Section 409.901(7), Florida Statutes. Prior to July 1, 1993, the Medicaid program was administered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). Effective July 1, 1993, Section 20.42, Florida Statutes, 1992 Supplement, was amended by Chapter 93-129, Section 58, Laws of Florida, to give the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) the responsibility for the Medicaid program. The Medicaid program provides for mandatory and optional services to eligible recipients. Prescribed drug services are optional Medicaid services. Medicaid services may be provided only when medically necessary, must be provided in accordance with state and federal law, and are subject to any limitation established by the general appropriations act or Chapter 216, Florida Statutes. Sections 409.905 and 409.906, Florida Statutes. Medical providers participating in the Medicaid program receive reimbursement from Medicaid. Section 409.908, Florida Statutes. States are given the option to charge Medicaid recipients copayments for services. 42 CFR Section 447.50. Certain categories of services and recipients are exempt from copayments. 42 CFR Section 447.53. Forty-five percent of the Medicaid program is funded by state funds and fifty-five percent is funded with federal "matching funds." In order to receive federal matching funds for its Medicaid program, the state must submit a plan describing the nature and scope of its Medicaid program and giving assurances that the program will be administered in accordance with Title XIX and applicable federal regulations. This plan is known as the State plan. Effective February 14, 1992, the Legislature enacted Chapter 92-5, Laws of Florida, which amended the appropriations Act for fiscal year 1991-92. Proviso language in Chapter 92-5 relating to Specific Appropriation 1035 for Medicaid prescribed medicine/drug provides: The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is directed to implement, beginning April 1, 1992, a co-payment program for Prescribed Medicine in order to implement spending reductions of at least $770,213 from general revenue and $929,661 from the Medical Care Trust Fund in Specific Appropriation 1035. The State plan was amended effective April 10, 1992, to require a copayment of $1.00 per prescription for pharmacy services provided to Medicaid recipients. Certain categories of services and recipients were exempted from the copayment requirement. Providers were prohibited from denying services to recipients who were unable to pay the copayment. Prior to April 10, 1992, copayments had not been required for prescribed drug services. HRS adopted Emergency Rule 10CER92-4, effective April 10, 1992. HRS published notice of the emergency rule in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 18, No. 16, April 17, 1992. In this notice under the section entitled "SPECIFIC REASONS FOR FINDING AN IMMEDIATE DANGER TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE," it states in pertinent part: The 1992 Legislature reduced the prescribed drug services program FY 1991-1992 budget in Senate Bill 2408 which was signed by the Governor on February 14, 1992. This law requires the Medicaid program to implement a copayment requirement for prescription drugs by April 1992. . . . The emergency rule amended Rule 10C-7.042, Florida Administrative Code and required recipients to pay the pharmacy provider a $1.00 co-payment for each prescription or other prescribed drug service reimbursed by Medicaid. Certain categories of recipients and services were exempted from the copayment requirement. The pharmacy provider was required to request a copayment from non-exempt recipients. The pharmacy must determine a recipient's ability to pay the copayment based on the recipient's reply to the request for copayment, the recipient's past purchase history with that provider, and the recipient's recent purchase of non-essential items. A provider could not deny prescribed drug services to eligible recipients because of inability to pay the copayment. Although a recipient may not be able to pay the copayment, the recipient remains liable for the copayment. HRS began the rulemaking process to adopt the same amendments to Rule 10C-7.042 as a regular rule. Emergency Rule 10CER92-4 was challenged via a lawsuit in state court and was later removed to federal court. The proposed amendments to Rule 10C-7.042 were challenged in an administrative rule challenge, which was withdrawn and added to the lawsuit in federal court dealing with the challenge to the emergency rule. Chapter 92-293, Laws of Florida, the Appropriations Act for fiscal year beginning July 1, 1992 and ending June 30, 1993 contains the following proviso language relating to Medicaid prescribed drug services: Funds in Specific Appropriation 1019 are reduced by $18,581,894 from the General Revenue Fund, $3,281,004 from the Grants and Donations Trust Fund, $22,647,089 from the Medical Care Trust Fund, $2,632,000 from the Public Medical Assistance Trust Fund, and $58,013 from the Special Grants Trust Fund for the Department to implement a Medicaid comprehensive cost containment program. This program shall, at a minimum, incorporate: a prior authorization component; a co-payment program; an on site education program for providers prescribing the drugs; enhancements to the Department's ability to identify fraud and abuse; utilization of specific nursing home pharmacy consultants; and, shall implement new electronic technology to speed payments and capture third party liability information. By notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Rule 10CER92-4 has been continued pursuant to Section 120.54(9)(c), Florida Statutes. Chapter 93-184, Laws of Florida, the Appropriations Act for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1993 and ending June 30, 1994, contains no language concerning reductions in the appropriations for Medicaid prescription medicine services and contains no language concerning copayments for recipients receiving Medicaid prescription medicine services. The amounts appropriated for the Medicaid prescription medicine services was at or below the amounts appropriated in Chapter 92-293 Laws of Florida. Chapter 93-129, Section 48, Laws of Florida, created section 409.9081, Florida Statutes, which requires Medicaid recipients to pay nominal copayments for hospital outpatient services and physician services effective July 1, 1993. Prior to the enactment of section 409.9081, Florida Statutes, a one dollar copayment had been required for Medicaid outpatient hospital and physician service. Effective July 1, 1993, the copayments were raised to two dollars. Current revenues generated by the copayments for the Medicaid prescribed drug services is approximately $12 million. Thus, the discontinuance of the copayment would result in a $12 million shortfall for the provision of Medicaid prescribed drug services, and a restriction on services to the extent necessary to account for the shortfall. The Social Services Estimating Conference (SSEC) is a statutorily created body established to develop official information relating to the social service system of the state for use in the state planning and budgeting system. Section 216.136(6), Florida Statutes. Section 216.134(1), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: Unless otherwise provided by law or decided by unanimous agreement of the principals of the conference, all official information developed by the conference shall be based on the assumption that current law and current administrative practices will remain in effect throughout the period for which the official information is to be used. . . . The social services estimating conference for 1993-94 took into consideration the revenues from the copayments for the Medicaid prescribed drug services. Petitioner, Mildred Henry, resides in Jacksonville, Florida, and is disabled. She has received Medicaid since December, 1991. Her only income is Supplemental Income ("SSI") benefits of $434 per month. Ms. Henry suffers from many disabilities including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, hypertension, severe and chronic urinary tract infections, and depression. Her physicians have prescribed a number of medications to address these conditions including Cardizem (for high blood pressure), Zantac (for ulcers), Cipro (for chronic urinary tract infections), Phenazopyridine (for bladder problems), Imipramine (for depression), Premarin (hormone), Thes-dur (for asthma), Brethine (for asthma), Ventalin (for asthma), Furosemide (for excess fluid), K-Dur (potassium), Propoxy N (for pain), Nizoral (for skin irritations), Darvoset (for pain), Tylenol 3 (for pain), and Halcion (for anxiety). She needs to refill most of these prescriptions each month. Copayments for all of Ms. Henry's prescription medications amount to $16.00. Ms. Henry's income is below the federal poverty level. She cannot afford to pay a copayment for all her medications. Petitioner has informed her pharmacy that she does not have the money to pay copayments. However, the pharmacy has refused to provide the medications without payment of the co-payments. As a result, Petitioner runs out of medications and delays getting her prescriptions refilled until she can pay the copayment.
The Issue The issues presented are whether Petitioner is responsible for reimbursing the Agency for Health Care Administration for an overpayment for Medicaid services and, if so, whether administrative sanctions should be applied.
Findings Of Fact From April 19, 1995, through October 30, 1996, Petitioner was a pharmacy licensed to do business in the State of Florida. From April 15, 1995, through October 30, 1996, Petitioner was a Medicaid provider in good standing, pursuant to a Medicaid contract with the Agency. In 1996 Kathryn Holland, an agency employee, conducted an audit of Petitioner's records, using a method which the Agency calls an aggregate analysis. This analysis focuses on the inventory of a Medicaid provider and analyzes invoices and other documentation to determine if the provider had available during the audit period sufficient quantities of goods or products to support the quantity of goods or products billed to Medicaid. Holland analyzed the Agency's records to ascertain the claims filed by Petitioner and the amounts paid to Petitioner. She compiled a list of those drugs most frequently billed to the Agency's Medicaid program by Petitioner and selected 23 medications. She selected April 1, 1995, through October 30, 1996, as the audit period. She contacted Petitioner and requested records showing Petitioner's purchases of the medications on that list. She also contacted Mason Distributors, Inc., and H. I. Moore, Inc., two of Petitioner's primary suppliers, and requested copies of their invoices for medications purchased by Petitioner between May 1, 1995, and October 28, 1996. She prepared charts of the invoices and other documents received as a result of her requests. She reduced the number of audited drugs to 20 based upon adequate documentation provided to her for three of the listed medications. She prepared a preliminary report, which she sent to Petitioner with a request that Petitioner supply her with any additional records to show that additional supplies of the listed medication were available to Petitioner during the audit period. Petitioner responded to that request by providing additional documentation. Holland did not credit Petitioner with additional supplies based upon the additional documentation because the invoices appeared to be for a different pharmacy or appeared to reflect purchases outside the audit period. Further, the cancelled checks were payable to cash, had no notation as to the purpose of the checks, had a notation reflecting only a "business expense," had a notation for medication not on Holland's list, or reflected purchases outside the audit period. Petitioner was unable to document sufficient inventory during the audit period to justify the amount of medication billed to, and paid for by, the Agency. The Agency overpaid Petitioner in the amount of $12,529.11 for the 20 listed medications during the audit period and is entitled to reimbursement by Petitioner in that amount.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered determining that Petitioner is responsible to repay the Agency in the amount of $12,529.11 by a date certain, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000, and terminating Petitioner from the Medicaid program for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Falkinburg, Esquire Mark Thomas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William M. Furlow, Esquire Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Marks, Bryant & Yon, P.A. Highpoint Center, Suite 1200 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether the Respondents were overpaid by Medicaid for radiology and nuclear medicine services provided to Florida Medicaid patients. The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA, Agency or Petitioner) asserts that the Respondents, Lazaro Plasencia, M.D., and Ana M. Elosegui, M.D., billed Medicaid for procedures they did not perform in violation of Medicaid policy, the Florida Administrative Code, and Florida Statutes. The Respondents maintain that because of ambiguities in Medicaid policy regarding reimbursement protocols for the radiology services at issue, the Respondents mistakenly believed in good faith that under the applicable Medicaid regulations and guidelines, Medicaid would reimburse the "maximum" fee allowable under the relevant fee schedule. The Respondents acknowledge that the "professional component" of the radiology services at issue was provided by a third-party physician specialist. The Respondents further assert that they are entitled to, at the minimum, payment of the "technical component" of the medically necessary radiological services that they provided to Medicaid recipients. The Petitioner seeks reimbursement from Dr. Plasencia in the amount of $196,129.52 and $122,065.08 from Dr. Elosegui.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of monitoring the Medicaid Program in Florida. At all times material to the allegations of DOAH Case No. 07-2195MPI, the Respondent, Dr. Plasencia, was a licensed medical doctor in good standing with the State of Florida, license #ME49315, and was also a Medicaid provider, #0448125-00. Similarly, at all times material to the allegations of DOAH Case No. 07-2462MPI, the Respondent, Dr. Elosegui, was a licensed medical doctor in good standing with the State of Florida, license #ME85963, and was also a Medicaid provider, #2654636-00. Drs. Elosegui and Plasencia practiced medicine together in a shared office space in Miami, Florida. The Respondents were not members of a "group practice." The Respondents were individual providers who billed Medicaid separately, using their individual Medicaid provider numbers. The doctors performed services for Medicaid recipients and submitted the charges for those services to Medicaid. Medicaid has a "pay and chase" policy of paying Medicaid claims as submitted by providers. Audits performed by the Agency then, after-the-fact, reconcile the amounts paid to providers with the amounts that were payable under the Medicaid guidelines and pertinent rules. If more is paid to the provider than allowable, a recoupment against the provider is sought. In these cases, the Respondents conducted (or supervised) various tests including "Radiological and Nuclear Medicine" services for Florida Medicaid patients in a shared office setting. The services at issue in these cases were billed under the CPT procedure codes of series 70000 and 90000. The Petitioner has not challenged any procedure at issue as not "medically necessary." Moreover, the Petitioner does not dispute that the Respondents performed or supervised the "technical component" of the universe of the radiological services at issue. The "professional component" for the universe of the radiological services at issue in this proceeding was outsourced to third-party physicians. The Respondents contracted with the outside third-party physicians for the "professional component" services to read and interprete the radiological product. These third party physicians were not Medicaid providers, nor were they part of a Medicaid group provider that included the Respondents. When billing for the radiological services, the Respondents billed Medicaid for both the "technical" and "professional" components using the "maximum" fee set forth in the Fee Schedule. The Respondents knew or should have known that they had not performed a global service as they never performed or supervised the "professional" component of the services billed. The Petitioner performed an audit of the radiological claims for Dr. Plasencia for the dates of service July 1, 2001 through December 31, 2005. On December 1, 2006, the Petitioner issued a Final Audit Report that concluded Dr. Plasencia had been overpaid $196,129.52. Additionally, the Petitioner sought an administrative fine against Dr. Plasencia in the amount of $1,000.00. Similarly, the Petitioner performed an audit of the radiological claims submitted by Dr. Elosegui for the dates of service October 11, 2002 through December 31, 2005. On December 1, 2006, the Petitioner issued a Final Audit Report that concluded Dr. Elosegui had been overpaid $122,065.08. The Petitioner also sought an administrative fine against Dr. Elosegui in the amount of $1,000.00. In January 2005, the Fee Schedule applicable to CPT 90000 procedure code services was revised. The Fee Schedule specified a reimbursement amount for the "technical" component of the radiological services in the CPT 90000 code set. Prior to that time, there had been no reimbursable amount for the "technical component" performed separately from the "professional component." The Medicaid provider agreements executed between the parties govern the contractual relationships between these providers and the Agency. The parties do not dispute that those provider agreements, together with the pertinent laws or regulations, control the billing and reimbursement claims that remain at issue. The amounts, if any, that were overpaid were related solely to the radiological services billed under a global or inclusive manner that included the "professional" component within the amount claimed to be owed by Medicaid. The provider agreements pertinent to these cases are voluntary agreements between AHCA and the Respondents. The Fee Schedule adopted by the Petitioner dictates the code and reimbursement amounts authorized to be billed pursuant to the provider agreement. The Respondents performed or supervised the "technical components" for the radiological services billed to Medicaid. The Respondents did not perform the "professional component." For all of the 70000 series billing codes the components can be split and the "technical component" can be identified and paid separately. For these billing codes, the Respondents were given (or paid for) the "technical component" of the 70000 codes. Similarly, for the 90000 billing codes, for the "technical component" portion where it was identifiable and allowable, the Petitioner gave the Respondents credit for that amount. The "technical component" for the 90000 billing codes was not identifiable or allowable prior to 2005. Prior to the amendment to the Fee Schedule the 90000 billing codes were presumed to be performed in a global manner; i.e. the "professional component" and the "technical component" were done together by the Medicaid provider submitting the claim. That was not the factual case in these audits. Respondents were not authorized to bill the 90000 codes in the global manner as they did not perform the "professional component" of the services rendered. Any Medicaid provider whose billing is not in compliance with the Medicaid billing policies may be subject to the recoupment of Medicaid payments. The Petitioner administers the Medicaid program in Florida. Pursuant to its 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. These “integrity” audits are to assure that the provider bill and receive payment in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. The Respondents do not dispute the Agency’s authority to perform audits such as the ones at issue.
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 of recoupment as set forth in the reports at issue. The final order should also impose an administrative fine against each Respondent in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2008, 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 1st day of April, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Craig H. Smith, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Holly Benson, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Robert M. Penezic, Esquire Broad and Cassel Post Office Box 14010 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302-4010 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 Robert N. Nicholson, Esquire Broad and Cassel Post Office Box 14010 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302-4010
The Issue Whether Respondent, Florida Hospital Orlando (Respondent or FHO), was overpaid by Medicaid for care provided to the patient, L.D., in the amount of $52,606.04, as alleged by Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (Petitioner or AHCA); or, whether, as Respondent maintains, such care was medically necessary and supported by the record presented in this cause. Petitioner also maintains an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000.00 is warranted in this matter.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of monitoring the Medicaid Program in Florida. Petitioner, through MPI, audited FHO for the dates of service from January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008 (the audit period). At all times material to the audit period, FHO was enrolled as a Medicaid provider, governed by a Medicaid provider agreement, and subject to all pertinent Medicaid rules and regulations related to the provision of Medicaid services to Medicaid recipients/patients. Respondent's Medicaid Provider No. was 0010129001. All services provided to Medicaid patients are billed and identified by patient name, date of service, and provider. For purposes of confidentiality, the names of patients are redacted in MPI proceedings. Although this case began with a number of patients being identified as part of the audit dispute, only one patient, L.D., and the services provided to her remain at issue. Before a Medicaid provider is authorized to bill Medicaid for medical services rendered to a patient, several checks are considered. First, the patient must be Medicaid-eligible. There is no dispute that L.D. was Medicaid-eligible. Second, before an inpatient stay is reimbursable, a Medicaid provider must seek prior authorization. To do so, at all times material to this case, AHCA enlisted the assistance of, and contracted with, KePro South (KePro) to perform utilization management for inpatient hospital services for Medicaid recipients. This meant the Medicaid provider contacted KePro by email through a system known as "I-Exchange." In this case, FHO followed the protocol and requested prior approval for patient L.D. KePro approved the inpatient stay for L.D. All patient records for L.D. have been revisited in the course of this case and have been thoroughly debated by doctors for both parties. In summary, AHCA's expert, Dr. Walter, opined that the records for L.D. do not support the "medical necessity" for the extended inpatient stay that was provided for her care. In contrast, Dr. Busowski, opined that L.D. required the inpatient stay based upon the medical conditions she and her babies presented. The events leading up to the instant dispute, set in chronological context, are as follows: FHO provided medical services to a patient, L.D.; those services were billed to and paid by Medicaid; AHCA conducted its audit of FHO for the audit period prior to August 12, 2008; on that date, AHCA issued its Preliminary Audit Report (PAR); the PAR claimed a Medicaid overpayment in the amount of $359,107.65 (overpaid claims for the full audit period); in response, FHO set about to furnish additional documentation to support its Medicaid billings; such documentation was reviewed by Petitioner and its medical consultants before the Final Audit Report (FAR) was entered; then, the FAR reduced the amount claimed as overpayment, gave Respondent the opportunity to challenge the FAR, and forwarded the case to DOAH. Respondent continued to provide additional information to AHCA throughout the pre-hearing and post-hearing times. Subsequent to discovery in this case, AHCA considered information from FHO and, ultimately, the overpayment claim was reduced to $52,606.04 as noted above. Prior to entering the FAR, Petitioner did not have the benefit of testimony from Dr. Busowski or Dr. Fuentes. Additionally, Dr. Walter, AHCA's consultant, did not have the benefit of reviewing the records from Dr. Busowski's point of reference. It is undisputed that FHO billed Medicaid and was paid $52,606.04 for patient L.D. Dr. Busowski is a board-certified physician whose specialty is OB/GYN and whose subspecialty is Maternal Fetal Medicine, also described as "perinatologist" in this record. L.D. presented to a clinic staffed by Dr. Busowski and his former associate, Dr. Fuentes. Both doctors have privileges at FHO and took turns monitoring patients admitted to the hospital. In examining L.D., it was discovered that her cervix had shrunk from 2.6 to 1.2 centimeters. As L.D. was pregnant with twins, the patient was admitted to FHO as a "high risk" pregnancy. Simply stated, the medical concern for L.D. was that she would deliver her children prematurely and, thereby, cause additional medical issues for herself, as well as her babies. L.D. was only 26 weeks, two days along at the time, and it would be very difficult for the twins to be delivered at that time. Further, L.D. had had two prior deliveries by C-section, so it was anticipated that her twins would also be delivered in that fashion. Finally, the twins were locked with one in a breached position so that if the children had prematurely delivered vaginally, other complications would have been likely. L.D. remained at FHO until she was discharged at 35 weeks, six days. During her stay at FHO, doctors were able to monitor contractions, make sure her C-section scar did not dehisce, and chart the growth, well-being, and viability of the children. Some patients, such as L.D., may be monitored in a home setting with "take home" equipment. That device is not covered by Medicaid and was, therefore, not an option for L.D. It may have provided a less expensive treatment option had it been available to L.D. and had her home environment been suitable for its use. It is unknown whether L.D. and her home environment would have been conducive to the home monitoring some patients can use. Another consideration in keeping L.D. hospitalized was the well-being of the unborn twins. Medical costs for premature babies are higher than full-term children. Had L.D. delivered prematurely, there would have been three Medicaid patients with serious medical needs rather than one. Dr. Busowski candidly admitted that all considerations in keeping L.D. hospitalized were not listed in the patient's chart. As a specialist, Dr. Busowski did not think it was necessary to have certain facts documented. It is not Dr. Busowski's policy to keep any mother hospitalized unnecessarily. It was not Dr. Busowski's practice to write "a whole bunch because nothing has changed." L.D.'s chart contained daily notes from an attending OB/GYN or resident, but orders were not written for medication unless it changed or was new. For example, if an order for prenatal vitamins were written, it would naturally continue throughout the patient's stay without additional orders. In this case, L.D. was on the medication Procardia. It was used to stop pre-term contractions. When L.D. was discharged and the babies were not in danger, presumably, Procardia was not necessary. Until she was stabilized during her hospitalization, it was necessary. Thus, the length of stay ultimately is the issue of this proceeding. Not that L.D. was admitted inappropriately or without medical basis, but that she was kept as an inpatient longer than medically necessary. Since L.D. was admitted at 26 weeks, two days and discharged at 35 weeks, six days, the question then essentially is: When in the interim should she have been discharged because her continued inpatient care was not necessary? Arguably she could have taken the medication to stop contractions at home, monitored herself somehow, and rushed to the emergency room (ER) if delivery was imminent. Delivery of the twins short of a prescribed gestation period would have placed the children at risk. Who would have borne the medical responsibility for pre-term twins born under ER conditions when it was avoidable and was, in fact, avoided in this case? Medicaid has a "pay and chase" policy of paying Medicaid claims as submitted by providers. Audits performed by the Agency then, after-the-fact, reconcile the amounts paid to providers with the amounts that were payable under the Medicaid guidelines and pertinent rules. The Medicaid provider agreement executed between the parties governs the contractual relationship between FHO and AHCA. The parties do not dispute that the provider agreement, together with the pertinent laws or regulations, control the billing and reimbursement of the claim that remains at issue. The amount, if any, that was overpaid related solely to the period of inpatient treatment that L.D. received from week 27 of her pregnancy until her discharge. Dr. Walter conceded perhaps a week would be required to stabilize the patient under her presenting conditions. The provider agreement pertinent to this case was voluntarily entered into by the parties. Any Medicaid provider whose billing is not in compliance with the Medicaid billing policies may be subject to the recoupment of Medicaid payments. Petitioner administers the Medicaid program in Florida. Pursuant to its authority, AHCA conducts audits to ensure compliance with the Medicaid provisions and provider agreements. The audits are routinely performed and Medicaid providers are aware that they may be audited. Audits are to ensure that the provider bill and receive payment in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. Respondent does not dispute Petitioner's authority to perform audits. Respondent does, however, dispute that a recoupment is appropriate, because FHO sought and was given prior approval for the inpatient stay for L.D. through the KePro system. If the inpatient length of stay was medically necessary for L.D., Petitioner does not dispute the amount billed as accurately reflecting the services provided to L.D. during that stay. There is no question that L.D. stayed in the hospital for the length of stay noted in the record. Based upon the weight of the persuasive evidence in this case, it is determined that L.D.'s length of stay until week 35 of her pregnancy was medically appropriate and necessary to protect the medical health and well-being of L.D. and her unborn children.
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 dismissing the case, with each party bearing its own costs and expenses of the litigation. Further, to the extent that Petitioner may have already sought recoupment against Respondent for the alleged overpayment, it is recommended that those funds be credited back to FHO. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 August, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Arnold, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Justin Senior, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 John D. Buchanan, Jr., Esquire Henry, Buchanan, Hudson, Suber & Carter, P.A. Post Office Drawer 14079 Tallahassee, Florida 32317 Debora E. Fridie, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue in this case concerns whether the Petitioner, H. J. Dental, Inc. (“Petitioner” or "HJD"), is obligated to repay $313,415.44 to the Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration ("Respondent" or "AHCA") for Medicaid payments that were claimed by and were paid to the Petitioner for services which the AHCA asserts in its audit report were not eligible for payment under the terms of the Medicaid program.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Petitioner was an enrolled Medicaid provider, having been enrolled under Provider number 071468200. As an enrolled Medicaid provider, the Petitioner was authorized to provide certain dental services to Medicaid recipients and to bill the Medicaid program for those services. All Medicaid provider agreements, including the one entered into by HJD, contain a specific provision that the provider agrees to abide by the statutes, laws, rules, and policies of the Medicaid Program in connection with the provisions of services to recipients. The "audit period" that is the subject of the AHCA's recoupment effort is January 1, 1998, to December 31, 1998. During this audit period, the Medicaid Program paid the Petitioner $313,415.44 for the dental services that are at issue in this proceeding. The AHCA contends that the entire $313,415.44 is subject to recoupment. On or about March 5, 2000, the AHCA prepared and mailed to HJD a Preliminary Agency Audit Report ("PAAR"). The PAAR advised HJD that the AHCA had "made a preliminary determination that certain claims for which you [HJD] were paid $313,415.44, were for services not covered by Medicaid." The PAAR described the process by which the AHCA had arrived at its audit conclusions and specifically advised HJD of the following specific reasons for the audit conclusion that HJD had been overpaid in the amount of $313,415.44: The documentation submitted for x-ray procedure codes D0220, D0230, D0240, and D0272, whch are not considered to be of diagnostic quality by the Medicaid dental consultant. The Medicaid Dental Coverage and Limitations Handbook states in chapter 2-21, Radiographic Examination: "All radiographs must be of diagnostic quality." Claims for radiographic film that is not considered to be of diagnostic quality are considered overpayments in the sample. You billed and were paid for specific claims in the sample that are not documented as having been actually provided, or that lack sufficient documentation in the recipient's dental records to support the medical necessity for the claims. Claims that lack appropriate documentation are considered overpayments in the sample. The PAAR also described the AHCA's sample methodology (a random sample of 42 Medicaid recipients for whom 306 claims were submitted by HJD), as well as the statistical formula used by the AHCA for cluster sampling. On the last page of the PAAR, HJD was also advised: "Since the findings of our review are provisional, you may submit information that you believe would reduce the amount of improper payments identified." On or about August 18, 2000, the law firm that was then representing HJD mailed to the AHCA a letter responding to the PAAR. The letter of August 18, 2000, criticized the validity of the AHCA's audit methodology and offered to settle the matter for a small fraction of the $313,415.44 sought by the AHCA. The letter of August 18, 2000, did not include any additional information regarding any of the sampled claims that provided the factual basis for the audit conclusions. On or about October 27, 2000, the AHCA issued a Final Agency Audit Report ("FAAR") in this case. The overpayment amount in the FAAR remained the same as in the PAAR, beause HJD did not provide any additional evidence following its receipt of the PAAR. The audit in this case was performed in a manner consistent with the AHCA's established practices and procedures for audits of Medicare Program providers. The audit in this case was performed using accepted and valid auditing, accounting, analytical, statistical, and peer-review methods. During the subject audit period from January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1988, HJD received overpayments from the Medicare Program in the amount of $313,415.44. As of the date of the hearing in this case, HJD has not repaid any of the overpayment amount to the AHCA.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case concluding that HJD was overpaid by the Medicaid Program in the amount of $313,415.44, and requiring that HJD promptly pay to the AHCA the amount of $313,415.44, plus interest at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. 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 1st day of July, 2004.
