Findings Of Fact Respondent is Hooshang Hooshmand, a licensed physician at all times relevant to these proceedings. He was issued license number ME 0021496 by the State of Florida. Medicare is a program of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources which is administered by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA). The program allows for third party payment, by the federal government, for diagnostic programs and medical treatments administered on an inpatient and outpatient basis to individuals eligible for medicare coverage. Among providers of medical services, only licensed physicians may be paid by the program for rendition of services. Others who may be reimbursed include health care professionals, such as durable medical equipment suppliers, as well as patients themselves in the instance of medical services rendered by a nonparticipating physician. On October 9, 1987, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Respondent was convicted, after a jury trial, of ten counts of submission of fraudulent medicare claims in violation of Title 18, U.S.C. Section 287 and Section 2. He was also convicted on 11 counts of devising a scheme to defraud by mail, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources in violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1341 and Section 2. Respondent's sentence upon his conviction included a term of 18 months imprisonment and five years probation upon completion of imprisonment and any parole period; payment of restitution in the amount of $3,101.24; payment of a fine of $250,000; payment of an assessment of $300; performance of 5,000 hours of community service during the five year probationary period following imprisonment. The verdict and sentence are presently on appeal to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. The expert testimony of Michael Gutman, M.D., a specialist in forensic psychiatry in the State of Florida, establishes that the practice of medicine in Florida encompasses not only a physician's technical competence; but also the relationship between a physician and the patient. Such a relationship is based upon trust and honesty. While the physician's expectation of payment for services is part of the patient/physician relationship, fraudulent billing for those services by the physician to either the patient or a third party payor directly affects the practice of medicine through its impact on that relationship. A fraudulent billing scheme, such as that of which Respondent was convicted, introduces dishonesty to the physician/patient relationship and prevents a proper evaluation of the patient in favor of a methodology permitting fraudulent billing. Such methodology would necessarily be one chosen to permit fraudulent billing in a way which would escape detection; a choice not necessarily in the best interest of the patient. Gutman's testimony also provides an adequate record upon which to find that fraud, such as that reflected by Respondent's criminal conviction, also directly relates to the ability to practice medicine because the physician's professional judgement and ethical standards are involved. Such judgement has a direct bearing on the ability to practice medicine. How that judgement is exercised could very well affect the life of the patient in some situations. While it is found Respondent's conviction of fraud in the use of the billing apparatus in his practice directly relates to professional judgement and the ability to practice medicine, there has been no showing that the Respondent's judgemental aberration at that time detrimentally affected his patients' health or his technical competence. In mitigation of the charge in the administrative complaint, Respondent provided testimony of witnesses establishing his technical competence and expertise in his areas of specialization; his extremely impressive professional credentials; the high regard in which he is held by certain of his peers and patients; and his previously unblemished record in the practice of medicine. Respondent also provided testimony of witnesses establishing the complexity of medicare billing and the fact that many physicians, while holding ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of such billing, delegate this task to subordinates. Testimony of Respondent establishes that the complexity of medicare procedures played a major role in his violation of the legal requirements in that system of reimbursement and is partially to blame for his criminal conviction. The testimony of Eleanor Breckner, offered by Petitioner to rebut Respondent's testimony, is not credited. In addition to Beckner's demeanor while testifying, her testimony is diminished in view of her admission that she committed perjury and embezzlement on previous occasions. Beckner also admitted to incidents of attempted suicide indicative of mental instability. Her testimony is not credited with any probative value.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent pay an administrative fine of $2,500 and that his license be placed on probation for a period of two years upon terms and conditions to be established by the Board of Medicine. It is further recommended that a condition of such probation require the satisfactory completion by Respondent of a course of study designed to provide him the information and skills necessary to properly comply with medicare reimbursement procedures. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 3rd day of March, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1.-4. Addressed. 5.-6. Unnecessary to result. 7. Addressed in part, remainder unnecessary. 8-10. Unnecessary to result. 11. Addressed in part; remainder unnecessary. 12.-14. Unnecessary to result. Addressed in part; remainder unnecessary. Adopted by this reference. Rejected, not supported by the evidence. Unnecessary to result. 19.-20. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Unnecessary to result; also cumulative. Adopted by this reference. Rejected as cumulative. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Unnecessary to result and not relevant. 26.-27. Unnecessary to result. Unnecessary to result and cumulative. Addressed in part; remainder unnecessary to result. 30.-31. Unnecessary to result; cumulative. 32. Reject, not supported by weight of the evidence. 33.-36. Rejected, not relevant. 37.-41. Unnecessary to result. 42.-43. Addressed in part, remainder unnecessary. 44.-45. Unnecessary to result reached. 46. Addressed in part, remainder unnecessary. 47.-50. Unnecessary to result. Unnecessary and cumulative. Unnecessary to result. Rejected on basis of relevancy. 54.-56. Addressed in part, remainder unnecessary. Unnecessary to result reached. Rejected, not relevant. Unnecessary to result reached. Rejected, not relevant. 61.-67. Unnecessary to result reached. Rejected, not credible and not supported by the weight of the evidence. Also a legal conclusion. Addressed. Unnecessary to result. Adopted by this reference. Adopted in substance. Rejected as a legal conclusion. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1.-7. Adopted in substance. 8.-9. Addressed. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan King, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Joesph C. Jacobs, Esq. Melissa Fletcher Allaman, Esq. 305 South Gadsden Street P.O. Box 1170 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1170 Roy L. Glass, Esq. 3000-66th Street North Suite B St. Petersburg, FL 33710
The Issue The issue is the amount payable to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration ("Respondent" or "ACHA"), in satisfaction of Respondent's Medicaid lien from a settlement received by Petitioner, Jonathan Velez ("Petitioner" or "Velez"), from a third party, pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2015).
Findings Of Fact On September 3, 2008, Velez, then a 14-year-old adolescent child was injured while playing football in Clewiston, Florida. On the date of the accident, Petitioner had a helmet to helmet (face to face) collision with another football participant. The collision caused a hyper-extended injury and Velez immediately fell to the ground and lost consciousness. Velez suffered a C5 burst fracture, a spinal cord injury, anterior cord syndrome and subsequent injuries originating from this accident, initially rendering him paralyzed. As a result of the injuries, and subsequent ramifications from said injuries, Velez suffered extensive permanent injuries and required extensive medical treatment in Miami, Florida, from September 3, 2008, through October 28, 2013. Petitioner sued numerous defendants for his injuries, but because of waiver and release forms signed by his guardian, the parties settled the case to avoid the possibility of summary judgment against Petitioner. Petitioner recovered $430,000.00 from a settlement against defendants. The settlement's allocation included: attorney's fees (40 percent) in the amount of $172,000.00; costs in the amount of $4,789.72; past medicals in the amount of $60,000.00; and future medicals in the amount of $20,000.00.1/ ACHA, through the Medicaid program, paid $142,855.89 on behalf of Petitioner for medical benefits related to the injuries sustained by Petitioner. Xerox Recovery Services, Respondent's collection's contractor, notified Petitioner that he owed $142,855.89 to satisfy a Medicaid lien claim from the medical benefits paid to him from the proceeds received from the third-party settlement. Petitioner contested the lien amount. At the final hearing, Petitioner presented, without objection, the expert valuation of damages testimony of Donna Waters-Romero ("Waters-Romero"). Waters-Romero has 30 years' experience in both state and federal courts and has solely practiced in the area of personal injury defense, including cases with similar injuries specific to this type of case. Waters-Romero's experience also encompasses evaluation of personal injury cases based on the review of medical records, case law, and injuries. In preparation for her testimony, Waters-Romero reviewed the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, evaluations, medical records, and defendant's motion for summary judgment along with the attached documents. She also met with Petitioner's attorneys and reviewed the mediation summary, exhibits, case law on Medicaid liens, letter of discharge, and release and settlement agreement. Waters-Romero also specifically researched three circuit court orders that were entered regarding allocation regarding Medicaid liens. To determine how to value Petitioner's claim, Waters-Romero relied on Wos v. E.M.A., 133 S. Ct. 1391(2013), a United States Supreme Court case, and on the circuit court cases as guidance. She determined that every category of the settlement should be reduced based on the ultimate settlement. During her evaluation, Waters-Romero also acknowledged the litigation risk in Velez's case due to the issues with the liability and the waiver and release. Based on her review, Waters-Romero opined that the overall value of Petitioner's claim was valued conservatively at $2,000,000.00, which was unrebutted. Waters-Romero's testimony was credible, persuasive, and is accepted. The evidence was clear and convincing that the total value of the damages related to Petitioner's injury was $2,000,000.00 and that the settlement amount, $430,000.00 was 21.5 percent of the total value. The settlement does not fully compensate Petitioner for the total value of his damages. ACHA's position is that it should be reimbursed for its Medicaid expenditures pursuant to the statutory formula in section 409.910(11)(f). Under the statutory formula, the lien amount is computed by deducting 25 percent attorney's fee of $107,500.00 from the $430,000.00 recovery, which yields a sum of $322,500.00. In this matter, ACHA then deducted zero in taxable costs, which left a sum of $322,500.00, then divided that amount by two, which yields $161,250.00. Under the statute, Respondent is limited to recovery of the amount derived from the statutory formula or the amount of its lien, whichever is less. Petitioner's position is that reimbursement for past medical expenses should be limited to the same ratio as Petitioner's recovery amount to the total value of damages. Petitioner has established that the settlement amount of $430,000.00 is 21.5 percent of the total value ($2,000,000.00) of Petitioner's damages. Using the same calculation, Petitioner advances that 21.5 percent of $60,000.00 (Petitioner's amount allocated in the settlement for past medical expenses), $12,900.00, should be the portion of the Medicaid lien paid. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent should be reimbursed for its Medicaid lien in a lesser amount than the amount calculated by Respondent pursuant to the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f).
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services improperly determined the Petitioners' rate of Medicaid reimbursement for the period January 1, 1990, through June 30, 1990?
Findings Of Fact The Emergency Rule and the Permanent Rule have been determined to be valid in a Final Order entered simultaneously with this Recommended Order. The Department's action in freezing the Medicaid reimbursement rate of the Petitioners in these cases was taken pursuant to the Emergency Rule and the Permanent Rule.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order in these cases dismissing the Petitioners' amended petitions. DONE and ENTERED this 26 day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 day of May, 1992. APPENDIX Case Numbers 91-4893, 91-4894, 91-4895, 91-4914, 91-4929, 91-5837 and 91-6191 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1 and 4. 2 5-6. 3 13. 4 7. 5 3 and 13-14. 6 15. 7 17-19. 8 20. 9 21. 10 22. 11 23. 12 8. 13 12. 14 11. 15 24. 16 25-27. 17 28-29. 18 29. 19 30-32. 20 34-37. See 39. The last three sentences are not relevant. The determination of compliance with specific federal requirements for the Department's action was the responsibility of HCFA. HCFA presumably determined that the Department complied with all federal requirements since it approved the Department's plan amendment. 39. The last two sentences are not relevant. The determination of compliance with specific federal requirements for the Department's action was the responsibility of HCFA. HCFA presumably determined that the Department complied with all federal requirements since it approved the Department's plan amendment. 23 40-41. 24 43. 25 45. 26 46. 27 47. 28 48. The last two sentences are argument. 29 49. 30 42. 31 29 and 32. The weight of the evidence failed to prove the Department's motive for providing assurances to HCFA were anything other than to meet federal requirements. 32 28. 33 55. 34 34-35. See 59-60 and 63. The detailed findings of fact concerning the nature of the Department's inflationary analysis are not necessary. HCFA rejected this analysis and based its decision on other information provided by the Department. Additionally, the determination of compliance with specific federal requirements for the Department's action was the responsibility of HCFA. HCFA presumably determined that the Department complied with all federal requirements since it approved the Department's plan amendment. 35 See 60-63. 36 52-54. 37 54. 38 55 and hereby accepted. 39 59 and hereby accepted. 40 See 60-65. HCFA did not "reject" the Department's proposed plan amendment. 41 See 63. 42-43 See 60-66. 44-46, 50-54 Although the proposed findings of fact concerning what the Department told HCFA are generally correct, these proposed findings of fact are not relevant to this proceeding. As previously stated, the determination of compliance with specific federal requirements for the Department's action was the responsibility of HCFA. HCFA presumably determined that the Department complied with all federal requirements since it approved the Department's plan amendment. 47 Hereby accepted. 48-49 Hereby accepted except for the proposed findings that the Department "misled", "misrepresented" or provided "inaccurate and misleading information." The last sentence of proposed finding of fact 49 is not relevant. 55 67. 56 Hereby accepted. 57 Not relevant. 58 69. 59 70. 60 71. 61 50 and 73. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 4. 3 5. 4 6. 5 3 and 13-14. 6 15. 7 17-19. 8 20. 9 21. 10 22. 11 23. 12 8. 13 11. 14 24. 15 25-26. 16 Hereby accepted. 17 27 and 29-32. 18 34-37. 19 39-41. 20 41. 21 43. 22 33. 23 42. 24 52-53 and 58. 25 54. 26 55. 27 56. 28 57. 29 60-65. 30 67. 31 68. 32 69. 33 70. 34 71. 35 50 and 73. 36 72. 37 73. 38 Hereby accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Thomas C. Fox, Esquire Michael D. Smith, Esquire 1200 18th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 W. David Watkins, Esquire Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 David Pius Medicaid Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 230 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Medicaid overpayments were made to Respondent and, if so, what is the total amount of those overpayments. Whether, as a "sanction," Respondent should be directed to submit to a "comprehensive follow-up review in six months."
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings s of fact are made to supplement and clarify the factual stipulations set forth in the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation and their January 26, 2007, pleading:4 Respondent and his Practice Respondent is a pediatric physician whose office is located in a poor neighborhood in Hialeah, Florida. He has a very busy practice, seeing approximately 50 to 60 patients each day the office is open. Respondent documents patient visits by making handwritten notations on printed "progress note" forms. Because of the fast-paced nature of his practice, he does not always "have time to write everything as [he] would like, because [there] is too much" for him to do. Respondent's Participation in the Medicaid Program During the Audit Period, Respondent was authorized to provide physician services to eligible Medicaid patients. Respondent provided such services pursuant to a valid Provider Agreement (Provider Agreement) with AHCA, which contained the following provisions, among others: The Provider agrees to participate in the Florida Medicaid program under the following terms and conditions: * * * Quality of Services. The provider agrees to provide medically necessary services or goods of not less than the scope and quality it provides to the general public. The provider agrees that services or goods billed to the Medicaid program must be medically necessary, of a quality comparable to those furnished by the provider's peers, and within the parameters permitted by the provider's license or certification. The provider further agrees to bill only for the services performed within the specialty or specialties designated in the provider application on file with the Agency. The services or 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, regulations, licensure laws, Medicaid bulletins, manuals, handbooks and Statements of Policy as they may be amended from time to time. Term and signatures. The parties agree that this is a voluntary agreement between the Agency and the provider, in which the provider agrees to furnish services or goods to Medicaid recipients. . . . Provider Responsibilities. The Medicaid provider shall: * * * (b) Keep and maintain in a systematic and orderly manner 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, business, and fiscal records that fully justify and disclose the extent of the goods and services rendered and billings made under the Medicaid. The provider agrees that only records made at the time the goods and services were provided will be admissible in evidence in any proceeding relating to the Medicaid program. * * * (d) Except as otherwise provided by law, the provider agrees to provide immediate access to authorized persons (including but not limited to state and federal employees, auditors and investigators) to all Medicaid- related information, which may be in the form of records, logs, documents, or computer files, and all other information pertaining to services or goods billed to the Medicaid program. This shall include access to all patient records and other provider information if the provider cannot easily separate records for Medicaid patients from other records. * * * (f) Within 90 days of receipt, refund any moneys received in error or in excess of the amount to which the provider is entitled from the Medicaid program. * * * (i) . . . . The provider shall be liable for all overpayments for any reason and pay to the Agency any fine or overpayment imposed by the Agency or a court of competent jurisdiction. Provider agrees to pay interest at 12% per annum on any fine or repayment amount that remains unpaid 30 days from the date of any final order requiring payment to the Agency. * * * Respondent's Medicaid provider number (under which he billed the Medicaid program for providing these services) was (and remains) 370947700. Handbook Provisions The handbooks with which Petitioner was required to comply in order to receive Medicaid payment for services rendered during the Audit Period included the Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook, HCFA-1500 (MPR Handbook); Physician Coverage and Limitations Handbook (PCL Handbook); the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Coverage and Limitations Handbook (EPSDTCL Handbook); and the Child Health Check-up Coverage and Limitations Handbook (CHCUCL Handbook). Medical Necessity The PCL Handbook provided that the Medicaid program would reimburse physician providers for services "determined [to be] medically necessary" and not duplicative of another provider's service, and it went on to state as follows: 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 fact that a provider has prescribed, recommended, or approved medical or allied care, goods, or services does not, in itself, make such care, goods or services medically necessary or a covered services. Note See Appendix D, Glossary, in the Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook, HCFA-1500 and EPSDT 224, for the definition of medically necessary.[5] The EPSDTCL and CHCUCL Handbooks had similar provisions. Documentation Requirements The MPR Handbook required the provider to keep "accessible, legible and comprehensible" medical records that "state[d] the necessity for and the extent of services" billed the Medicaid program and that were "signed and dated at the time of service." The handbook further required, among other things, that the provider retain such records for "at least five years from the date of service" and "send, at his or her expense, legible copies of all Medicaid-related information to the authorized state and federal agencies and their authorized representatives." The MPR Handbook warned that providers "not in compliance with the Medicaid documentation and record retention policies [described therein] may be subject to administrative sanctions and recoupment of Medicaid payments" and that "Medicaid payments for services that lack required documentation or appropriate signatures will be recouped." EPSDT Screening/Child Health Check-Up The EPSDTCL Handbook provided: To be reimbursed by Medicaid, the provider must address and document in the recipient's medical record all the required components of an EPSDT screening. The following required components are listed in the order that they appear on the optional EPSDT screening form: Health and developmental history Nutritional assessment Developmental assessment Physical examination Dental screening Vision screening Hearing screening Laboratory tests Immunization Health education Diagnosis and treatment The CHCUCL Handbook, which replaced the EPSDTCL Handbook in or around May 2000, similarly provided as follows: To be reimbursed by Medicaid, the provider must assess and document in the child's medical record all the required components of a Child Health Check-Up. The required components are as follows: Comprehensive Health and Developmental History, including assessment of past medical history, developmental history and behavioral health status; Nutritional assessment; Developmental assessment; Comprehensive Unclothed Physical Examination Dental screening including dental referral, where required; Vision screening including objective testing, where required; Hearing screening including objective testing, where required; Laboratory tests including blood lead testing, where required; Appropriate immunizations; Health education, anticipatory guidance; Diagnosis and treatment; and Referral and follow-up, as appropriate. Coding Chapter 3 of the PCL Handbook "describe[d] the procedure codes for the services reimbursable by Medicaid that [had to be] used by physicians providing services to eligible recipients." As explained on the first page of this chapter of the handbook: The procedure codes listed in this chapter [were] Health Care Financing Administration Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Levels 1, 2 and 3. These [were] based on the Physician[]s['] Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) book. The Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) book referred to in Chapter 3 of the PCL Handbook was a publication of the American Medical Association. It contained a listing of procedures and services performed by physicians in different settings, each identified by a "procedure code" consisting of five digits or a letter followed by four digits. For instance, there were various "procedure codes" for office visits. These "procedure codes" included the following, among others: New Patient * * * 99204 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient which requires these three key components: a comprehensive history; a comprehensive examination; and medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate to high severity. Physicians typically spend 45 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * Established Patient * * * 99213 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: an expanded problem focused history; an expanded problem focused examination; medical decision making of low complexity. Counseling and coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of low to moderate severity. Physicians typically spend 15 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. 99214 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: a detailed history; a detailed examination; medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate to high severity. Physicians typically spend 25 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * Fee Schedules In Appendix J of the PCL Handbook, there was a "fee schedule," which established the amount physicians would be paid by the Medicaid program for each reimbursable procedure and service (identified by "procedure code"). For both "new patient" office visits (99201-99205 "procedure code" series) and "established patient" office visits (99211-99215 "procedure code" series), the higher numbered the "procedure code" in the series, the more a physician would be reimbursed under the "fee schedule." The Audit and Aftermath Commencing in or around August 2002, AHCA conducted an audit of Respondent's Medicaid claims for services rendered during the Audit Period (Audit Period Claims).6 Respondent had submitted 18,102 such Audit Period Claims, for which he had received payments totaling $596,623.15. These Audit Period Claims involved 1,372 different Medicaid patients. From this group, AHCA randomly selected a "cluster sample" of 40 patients. Of the 18,102 Audit Period Claims, 713 had been for services that, according to the claims, had been provided to the 40 patients in the "cluster sample" (Sample Claims). Respondent had received a total of $23,263.18 for these 713 Sample Claims. During an August 28, 2002, visit to Respondent's office, AHCA personnel "explain[ed] to [Respondent] what the audit was about [and] why [AHCA] was doing it" and requested Respondent to provide AHCA with copies of the medical records Respondent had on file for the 40 patients in the "cluster sample" documenting the services provided to them during the Audit Period. The originals of these records were not inspected by AHCA personnel or agents during, or any time after, this August 28, 2002, site visit. Sometime within approximately 30 to 45 days of the August 28, 2002, site visit, Respondent, through his office staff, made the requested copies (First Set of Copies) and provided them to AHCA. There is nothing on the face of these documents to suggest that they were not true, accurate, and complete copies of the originals in Respondent's possession, as they existed at the time of copying (Copied Originals). They do not appear, upon visual examination, to be the product of "bad photocopying." While the handwritten entries and writing are oftentimes difficult (at least for the undersigned) to decipher, this is because of the poor legibility of the handwriting, not because the copies are faint or otherwise of poor quality. Each of the Sample Claims was reviewed to determine whether it was supported by information contained in the First Set of Copies. An initial review was conducted by AHCA Program Analyst Theresa Mock and AHCA Registered Nurse Consultant Blanca Notman. AHCA then contracted with Larry Deeb, M.D., to conduct an independent "peer review" in accordance with the provisions of Section 409.9131, Florida Statutes. Since 1980, Dr. Deeb has been a Florida-licensed pediatric physician, certified by the American Board of Pediatrics, in active practice in Tallahassee. AHCA provided Dr. Deeb with the First Set of Copies, along with worksheets containing a "[l]isting of [a]ll claims in [the] sample" on which Ms. Notman had made handwritten notations indicating her preliminary determination as to each of the Sample Claims (Claims Worksheets). In conducting his "peer review," Dr. Deeb did not interview any of the 40 patients in the "cluster sample," nor did he take any other steps to supplement the information contained in the documents that he was provided. Dr. Deeb examined the First Set of Copies. He conveyed to AHCA his findings regarding the sufficiency of these documents to support the Sample Claims by making appropriate handwritten notations on the Claims Worksheets before returning them to AHCA. Based on Dr. Deeb's sufficiency findings, as well as Ms. Notman's "no documentation" determinations, AHCA "provisional[ly]" determined that Respondent had been overpaid a total $80,788.23 for the Audit Period Claims. By letter dated July 7, 2003 (Provisional Agency Audit Report), AHCA advised Petitioner of this "provisional" determination and invited Respondent to "submit further documentation in support of the claims identified as overpayment," adding that "[d]ocumentation that appear[ed] to be altered, or in any other way appear[ed] not to be authentic, [would] not serve to reduce the overpayment." Appended to the letter were "[t]he audit work papers [containing a] listing [of] the claims that [were] affected by this determination." In the Provisional Agency Audit Report, AHCA gave the following explanation as to how it arrived at its overpayment determination: REVIEW DETERMINATION(S) 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. Medicaid policy specifies how medical records must be maintained. A review of your medical records revealed that some services for which you billed and received payment were not documented. Medicaid requires documentation of the services and considers payment made for services not appropriately documented an overpayment. Medicaid policy addresses specific billing requirements and procedures. You billed Medicaid for Child Health Check Up (CHCUP) services and office visits for the same child on the same day. Child Health Check- Up Providers may only bill for one visit, a Child Health Check-Up or a sick visit. The difference between the amount you were paid and the appropriate fee is considered an overpayment. The overpayment was calculated as follows: A random sample of 40 recipients respecting whom you submitted 713 claims was reviewed. For those claims in the sample which have dates of service from January 01, 2000 through December 31, 2001 an overpayment of $4,168.00 or $5.84667601 per claim was found, as indicated on the accompanying schedule. Since you were paid for a total (population) of 18,102 claims for that period, the point estimate of the total overpayment is 18,102 x $5.84667601= $105,836.33. There is a 50 percent probability that the overpayment to you is that amount or more. There was then an explanation of the "statistical formula for cluster sampling" that AHCA used and how it "calculated that the overpayment to [Respondent was] $80,788.23 with a ninety-five percent (95%) probability that it [was] that amount or more." After receiving the Provisional Agency Audit Report, Respondent requested to meet with Dr. Deeb to discuss Dr. Deeb's sufficiency findings. The meeting was held on September 25, 2003, approximately six months after Dr. Deeb had reviewed the First Set of Copies and a year after AHCA had received the First Set of Copies from Respondent. At the meeting, Respondent presented to Dr. Deeb what Respondent represented was a better set of copies of the Copied Originals than the First Set of Copies (on which Dr. Deeb had based the sufficiency findings AHCA relied on in making its "provisional" overpayment determination). According to Respondent, the First Set of Copies "had not been properly Xeroxed." He stated that his office staff "had not copied the back section of the documentation and that was one of the major factors in the documentation not supporting the [claimed] level of service." The copies that Respondent produced at this meeting (Second Set of Copies) had additional handwritten entries and writing (both on the backs and fronts of pages) not found in the First Set of Copies: the backs of "progress note" pages that were completely blank in the First Set of Copies contained handwritten narratives, and there were handwritten entries and writing in numerous places on the fronts of these pages where, on the fronts of the corresponding pages in the First Set of Copies, just blank, printed lines appeared (with no other discernible markings). The Second Set of Copies was not appreciably clearer than the First Set of Copies. In the two hours that he had set aside to meet with Respondent, Dr. Deeb only had time to conduct a "quick[]," partial review of the Second Set of Copies. Based on this review (which involved looking at documents concerning approximately half of the 40 patients in the "cluster sample"), Dr. Deeb preliminarily determined to "allow" many of the Sample Claims relating to these patients that he had previously determined (based on his review of the First Set of Copies) were not supported by sufficient documentation. Following this September 25, 2003, meeting, after comparing the Second Set of Copies with the First Set of Copies and noting the differences between the two, AHCA "made the decision that [it] would not accept the [S]econd [S]et [of Copies]" because these documents contained entries and writing that appeared to have been made, not contemporaneously with the provision of the goods or services they purported to document (as required), but rather after the post-Audit Period preparation of the First Set of Copies. Instead, AHCA, reasonably, based its finalized overpayment determination on the First Set of Copies. Thereafter, AHCA prepared and sent to Respondent a Final Agency Audit Report, which was in the form of a letter dated June 29, 2004, advising Respondent that AHCA had finalized the "provisional" determination announced in the Provisional Agency Audit that he had been overpaid $80,788.23 for the Audit Period Claims (a determination that the preponderance of the record evidence in this case establishes is a correct one).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that AHCA enter a final order finding that Respondent received $80,788.23 in Medicaid overpayments for the Audit Period Claims, and requiring Respondent to repay this amount to AHCA. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2007.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent applied the proper reimbursement principles to Petitioners' initial Medicaid rate setting, and whether elements of detrimental reliance exist so as to require Respondent to establish a particular initial rate for Petitioners' facilities.
Findings Of Fact There are nine Petitioners in this case. Each of them is a long-term health care facility (nursing home) operated under independent and separate legal entities, but, generally, under the umbrella of a single owner, Tzvi "Steve" Bogomilsky. The issues in this case are essentially the same for all nine Petitioners, but the specific monetary impact on each Petitioner may differ. For purposes of addressing the issues at final hearing, only one of the Petitioners, Madison Pointe Rehabilitation and Health Center (Madison Pointe), was discussed, but the pertinent facts are relevant to each of the other Petitioners as well. Each of the Petitioners has standing in this case. The Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by each Petitioner was timely and satisfied minimum requirements. In September 2008, Bogomilsky caused to be filed with AHCA a Change of Licensed Operator ("CHOP") application for Madison Pointe.1 The purpose of that application was to allow a new entity owned by Bogomilsky to become the authorized licensee of that facility. Part and parcel of the CHOP application was a Form 1332, PFA. The PFA sets forth projected revenues, expenses, costs and charges anticipated for the facility in its first year of operation by the new operator. The PFA also contained projected (or budgeted) balance sheets and a projected Medicaid cost report for the facility. AHCA is the state agency responsible for licensing nursing homes in this state. AHCA also is responsible for managing the federal Medicaid program within this state. Further, AHCA monitors nursing homes within the state for compliance with state and federal regulations, both operating and financial in nature. The AHCA Division of Health Quality Assurance, Bureau of Long-Term Care Services, Long-Term Care Unit ("Long-Term Care Unit") is responsible for reviewing and approving CHOP applications and issuance of an operating license to the new licensee. The AHCA Division of Health Quality Assurance, Bureau of Health Facility Regulation, Financial Analysis Unit ("Financial Analysis Unit") is responsible for reviewing the PFA contained in the CHOP application and determining an applicant's financial ability to operate a facility in accordance with the applicable statutes and rules. Neither the Long-Term Care Unit nor the Financial Analysis Unit is a part of the Florida Medicaid Program. Madison Pointe also chose to submit a Medicaid provider application to the Medicaid program fiscal agent to enroll as a Medicaid provider and to be eligible for Medicaid reimbursement. (Participation by nursing homes in the Medicaid program is voluntary.) The Medicaid provider application was reviewed by the Medicaid Program Analysis Office (MPA) which, pursuant to its normal practices, reviewed the application and set an interim per diem rate for reimbursement. Interim rate-setting is dependent upon legislative direction provided in the General Appropriations Act and also in the Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (the Plan). The Plan is created by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS (formerly known as the Health Care Financing Administration) is a federal agency within the Department of Health and Human Services. CMS is responsible for administering the Medicare and Medicaid programs, utilizing state agencies for assistance when appropriate. In its PFA filed with the Financial Analysis Unit, Madison Pointe proposed an interim Medicaid rate of $203.50 per patient day (ppd) as part of its budgeted revenues. The projected interim rate was based on Madison Pointe's expected occupancy rate, projected expenses, and allowable costs. The projected rate was higher than the previous owner's actual rate in large part based on Madison Pointe's anticipation of pending legislative action concerning Medicaid reimbursement issues. That is, Madison Pointe projected higher spending and allowable costs based on expected increases proposed in the upcoming legislative session. Legislative Changes to the Medicaid Reimbursement System During the 2007 Florida Legislative Session, the Legislature addressed the status of Medicaid reimbursement for long-term care facilities. During that session, the Legislature enacted the 2007 Appropriations Act, Chapter 2007-72, Laws of Florida. The industry proposed, and the Legislature seemed to accept, that it was necessary to rebase nursing homes in the Medicaid program. Rebasing is a method employed by the Agency periodically to calibrate the target rate system and adjust Medicaid rates (pursuant to the amount of funds allowed by the Legislature) to reflect more realistic allowable expenditures by providers. Rebasing had previously occurred in 1992 and 2002. The rebasing would result in a "step-up" in the Medicaid rate for providers. In response to a stated need for rebasing, the 2007 Legislature earmarked funds to address Medicaid reimbursement. The Legislature passed Senate Bill 2800, which included provisions for modifying the Plan as follows: To establish a target rate class ceiling floor equal to 90 percent of the cost- based class ceiling. To establish an individual provider- specific target floor equal to 75 percent of the cost-based class ceiling. To modify the inflation multiplier to equal 2.0 times inflation for the individual provider-specific target. (The inflation multiplier for the target rate class ceiling shall remain at 1.4 times inflation.) To modify the calculation of the change of ownership target to equal the previous provider's operating and indirect patient care cost per diem (excluding incentives), plus 50 percent of the difference between the previous providers' per diem (excluding incentives) and the effect class ceiling and use an inflation multiplier of 2.0 times inflation. The Plan was modified in accordance with this legislation with an effective date of July 1, 2007. Four relevant sentences from the modified Plan are relevant to this proceeding, to wit: For a new provider with no cost history resulting from a change of ownership or operator, where the previous provider participated in the Medicaid program, the interim operating and patient care per diems shall be the lesser of: the class reimbursement ceiling based on Section V of this Plan, the budgeted per diems approved by AHCA based on Section III of this Plan, or the previous providers' operating and patient care cost per diem (excluding incentives), plus 50% of the difference between the previous providers' per diem (excluding incentives) and the class ceiling. The above new provider ceilings, based on the district average per diem or the previous providers' per diem, shall apply to all new providers with a Medicaid certification effective on or after July 1, 1991. The new provider reimbursement limitation above, based on the district average per diem or the previous providers' per diem, which affects providers already in the Medicaid program, shall not apply to these same providers beginning with the rate semester in which the target reimbursement provision in Section V.B.16. of this plan does not apply. This new provider reimbursement limitation shall apply to new providers entering the Medicaid program, even if the new provider enters the program during a rate semester in which Section V.B.16 of this plan does not apply. [The above cited sentences will be referred to herein as Plan Sentence 1, Plan Sentence 2, etc.] Madison Pointe's Projected Medicaid Rate Relying on the proposed legislation, including the proposed rebasing and step-up in rate, Madison Pointe projected an interim Medicaid rate of $203.50 ppd for its initial year of operation. Madison Pointe's new projected rate assumed a rebasing by the Legislature to eliminate existing targets, thereby, allowing more reimbursable costs. Although no legislation had been passed at that time, Madison Pointe's consultants made calculations and projections as to how the rebasing would likely affect Petitioners. Those projections were the basis for the $203.50 ppd interim rate. The projected rate with limitations applied (i.e., if Madison Pointe did not anticipate rebasing or believe the Plan revisions applied) would have been $194.26. The PFA portion of Madison Pointe's CHOP application was submitted to AHCA containing the $203.50 ppd interim rate. The Financial Analysis Unit, as stated, is responsible for, inter alia, reviewing PFAs submitted as part of a CHOP application. In the present case, Ryan Fitch was the person within the Financial Analysis Unit assigned responsibility for reviewing Madison Pointe's PFA. Fitch testified that the purpose of his review was to determine whether the applicant had projected sufficient monetary resources to successfully operate the facility. This would include a contingency fund (equal to one month's anticipated expenses) available to the applicant and reasonable projections of cost and expenses versus anticipated revenues.2 Upon his initial review of the Madison Pointe PFA, Fitch determined that the projected Medicaid interim rate was considerably higher than the previous operator's actual rate. This raised a red flag and prompted Fitch to question the propriety of the proposed rate. In his omissions letter to the applicant, Fitch wrote (as the fourth bullet point of the letter), "The projected Medicaid rate appears to be high relative to the current per diem rate and the rate realized in 2006 cost reports (which includes ancillaries and is net of contractual adjustments). Please explain or revise the projections." In response to the omissions letter, Laura Wilson, a health care accountant working for Madison Pointe, sent Fitch an email on June 27, 2008. The subject line of the email says, "FW: Omissions Letter for 11 CHOW applications."3 Then the email addressed several items from the omissions letter, including a response to the fourth bullet point which says: Item #4 - Effective July 1, 2007, it is anticipated that AHCA will be rebasing Medicaid rates (the money made available through elimination of some of Medicaid's participation in covering Medicare Part A bad debts). Based on discussions with AHCA and the two Associations (FHCA & FAHSA), there is absolute confidence that this rebasing will occur. The rebasing is expected to increase the Medicaid rates at all of the facilities based on the current operator's spending levels. As there is no definitive methodology yet developed, the rebased rates in the projections have been calculated based on the historical methodologies that were used in the 2 most recent rebasings (1992 and 2002). The rates also include the reestablishment of the 50% step-up that is also anticipated to begin again. The rebasing will serve to increase reimbursement and cover costs which were previously limited by ceilings. As noted in Note 6 of the financials, if something occurs which prevents the rebasing, Management will be reducing expenditures to align them with the available reimbursement. It is clear Madison Pointe's projected Medicaid rate was based upon proposed legislative actions which would result in changes to the Plan. It is also clear that should those changes not occur, Madison Pointe was going to be able to address the shortfall by way of reduced expenditures. Each of those facts was relevant to the financial viability of Madison Pointe's proposed operations. Madison Pointe's financial condition was approved by Fitch based upon his review of the PFA and the responses to his questions. Madison Pointe became the new licensed operator of the facility. That is, the Long-Term Care Unit deemed the application to have met all requirements, including financial ability to operate, and issued a license to the applicant. Subsequently, MPA provided to Madison Pointe its interim Medicaid rate. MPA advised Madison Pointe that its rate would be $194.55 ppd, some $8.95 ppd less than Madison Pointe had projected in its PFA (but slightly more than Madison Pointe would have projected with the 50 percent limitation from Plan Sentence 1 in effect, i.e., $194.26). The PFA projected 25,135 annual Medicaid patient days, which multiplied by $8.95, would equate to a reduction in revenues of approximately $225,000 for the first year of operation.4 MPA assigned Madison Pointe's interim Medicaid rate by applying the provisions of the Plan as it existed as of the date Madison Pointe's new operating license was issued, i.e., September 1, 2007. Specifically, MPA limited Madison Pointe's per diem to 50 percent of the difference between the previous provider's per diem and the applicable ceilings, as dictated by the changes to the Plan. (See Plan Sentence 1 set forth above.) Madison Pointe's projected Medicaid rate in the PFA had not taken any such limitations into account because of Madison Pointe's interpretation of the Plan provisions. Specifically, that Plan Sentence 3 applies to Madison Pointe and, therefore, exempts Madison Pointe from the new provider limitation set forth in Plan Sentences 1 and 2. However, Madison Pointe was not "already in the Medicaid program" as of July 1, 2007, as called for in Plan Sentence 3. Rather, Madison Pointe's commencement date in the Medicaid program was September 1, 2007. Plan Sentence 1 is applicable to a "new provider with no cost history resulting from a change of ownership or operator, where the previous operator participated in the Medicaid program." Madison Pointe falls within that definition. Thus, Madison Pointe's interim operating and patient care per diems would be the lesser of: (1) The class reimbursement ceiling based on Section V of the Plan; (2) The budgeted per diems approved by AHCA based on Section III of the Plan; or (3) The previous provider's operating and patient care cost per diem (excluding incentives), plus 50 percent of the difference between the previous provider's per diem and the class ceiling. Based upon the language of Plan Sentence 1, MPA approved an interim operating and patient care per diem of $194.55 for Madison Pointe. Plan Sentence 2 is applicable to Madison Pointe, because it applies to all new providers with a Medicaid certification effective after July 1, 1991. Madison Pointe's certification was effective September 1, 2007. Plan Sentence 3 is the primary point of contention between the parties. AHCA correctly contends that Plan Sentence 3 is not applicable to Petitioner, because it addresses rebasing that occurred on July 1, 2007, i.e., prior to Madison Pointe coming into the Medicaid system. The language of Plan Sentence 3 is clear and unambiguous that it applies to "providers already in the Medicaid program." Plan Sentence 4 is applicable to Madison Pointe, which entered the system during a rate semester, in which no other provider had a new provider limitation because of the rebasing. Again, the language is unambiguous that "[t]his new provider reimbursement limitation shall apply to new providers entering the Medicaid program. . . ." Madison Pointe is a new provider entering the program. Detrimental Reliance and Estoppel Madison Pointe submitted its CHOP application to the Long-Term Care Unit of AHCA for approval. That office has the clear responsibility for reviewing and approving (or denying) CHOP applications for nursing homes. The Long-Term Care Unit requires, as part of the CHOP application, submission of the PFA which sets forth certain financial information used to determine whether the applicant has the financial resources to operate the nursing home for which it is applying. The Long-Term Care Unit has another office within AHCA, the Financial Analysis Unit, to review the PFA. The Financial Analysis Unit is found within the Bureau of Health Facility Regulation. That Bureau is responsible for certificates of need and other issues, but has no authority concerning the issuance, or not, of a nursing home license. Nor does the Financial Analysis Unit have any authority to set an interim Medicaid rate. Rather, the Financial Analysis Unit employs certain individuals who have the skills and training necessary to review financial documents and determine an applicant's financial ability to operate. A nursing home licensee must obtain Medicaid certification if it wishes to participate in the program. Madison Pointe applied for Medicaid certification, filing its application with a Medicaid intermediary which works for CMS. The issuance of a Medicaid certification is separate and distinct from the issuance of a license to operate. When Madison Pointe submitted its PFA for review, it was aware that an office other than the Long-Term Care Unit would be reviewing the PFA. Madison Pointe believed the two offices within AHCA would communicate with one another, however. But even if the offices communicated with one another, there is no evidence that the Financial Analysis Unit has authority to approve or disapprove a CHOP application. That unit's sole purpose is to review the PFA and make a finding regarding financial ability to operate. Likewise, MPA--which determines the interim Medicaid rate for a newly licensed operator--operates independently of the Long-Term Care Unit or the Financial Analysis Unit. While contained within the umbrella of AHCA, each office has separate and distinct duties and responsibilities. There is no competent evidence that an applicant for a nursing home license can rely upon its budgeted interim rate--as proposed by the applicant and approved as reasonable by MPA--as the ultimate interim rate set by the Medicaid Program Analysis Office. At no point in time did Fitch tell Madison Pointe that a rate of $203.50 ppd would be assigned. Rather, he said that the rate seemed high; Madison Pointe responded that it could "eliminate expenditures to align them with the available reimbursement." The interim rate proposed by the applicant is an estimate made upon its own determination of possible facts and anticipated operating experience. The interim rate assigned by MPA is calculated based on the applicant's projections as affected by provisions in the Plan. Furthermore, it is clear that Madison Pointe was on notice that its proposed interim rate seemed excessive. In response to that notice, Madison Pointe did not reduce the projected rate, but agreed that spending would be curtailed if a lower interim rate was assigned. There was, in short, no reliance by Madison Pointe on Fitch's approval of the PFA as a de facto approval of the proposed interim rate. MPA never made a representation to Madison Pointe as to the interim rate it would receive until after the license was approved. There was, therefore, no subsequent representation made to Madison Pointe that was contrary to a previous statement. The Financial Analysis Unit's approval of the PFA was done with a clear and unequivocal concern about the propriety of the rate as stated. The approval was finalized only after a representation by Madison Pointe that it would reduce expenditures if a lower rate was imposed. Thus, Madison Pointe did not change its position based on any representation made by AHCA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, approving the Medicaid interim per diem rates established by AHCA and dismissing each of the Amended Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 23rd day of February, 2009.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issue involved here, Petitioner operated a 120 bed convalescent center in Milton, Florida. Subsequent to the close of fiscal year 1983, Petitioner was audited by the certified public accounting firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., acting for the State of Florida, DHRS, since Petitioner receives at least a portion of its income from the state because of services rendered under Medicaid. The audit report, dated October 20, 1983 showed, among other things, that Petitioner reported 43,081 total resident days of which 92.8 percent, or 39,981 patient resident days were under Medicaid. Petitioner is a corporation owned by Pasco and Mary Sue Gibson, husband and wife, who each own 25 percent of the corporate stock and who, according to the audit working papers, each devote 50 percent of their time to the business; and Edmund and Ruth Fortune, husband and wife, who also each own 25 percent of the corporate stock and who also, reportedly, devote 50 percent of their individual time to the business. Of these, four stockholders, each has at least one salaried position in addition to his or her stockholder interest. Pasco Gibson is in charge of maintenance and received fiscal year 1983 compensation of $10,155.00 of which $6,072.00 was allowed. His wife, Mary Sue, is vice president of the corporation and was paid $12,716.00 of which $3,850.00 was allowed for her services. Edmund Fortune is corporate president and assistant administrator and was paid $14,026.00 and Ruth Fortune, as Secretary/Treasurer and Activities Coordinator, was paid $6,978.00. In addition to his positions and compensations listed above, Mr. Fortune, who is a registered pharmacist and owns a drug company which supplies many if not all drugs used by the Center, is employed by it as a consultant pharmacist and in fiscal year 1983 was paid an additional $480.00 per month for this service, for a total of $5,760.00 over and above his corporate salary. As a result of the audit, Mr. Fortune's payments as consulting pharmacist and Mrs. Fortune's pay as activities coordinator, along with several other payments to other individuals, were identified as being excessive and reimbursement was subsequently disallowed by DHRS. It is the two payments to the Fortunes that were disallowed that Petitioner challenges. During the course of the audit, both figures were tested by standard audit techniques. In the case of the consulting pharmacist, the auditor contacted other convalescent centers of similar size in the area to determine what they paid their consulting pharmacist. These were: Bluffs Nursing Home 120 beds $35.00 per mo. Escambia County 155 beds - 0 - Nursing Home (the pharmacist did not charge a fee.) Pensacola Health Care 118 beds $20.00 per mo. Crestview Nursing Home 60 beds $75.00 per mo. An average of these four costs showed that the average was, according to DHRS, $52.00 per month for a 120 bed facility. When this figure was multiplied by 12 for the year, the total was $624.00 as the allowable figure. Therefore, of the total of $5,760.00 claimed, $5,136.00 was disallowed. Petitioner, in one of its late filed exhibits, contested this conclusion by submitting the letter opinion of the president of another Pensacola nursing home, The Magnolias, in which Mr. Fortune's virtues as a consulting pharmacist were extolled. This letter, however, fails to reflect what size the facility is and how much Mr. Fortune is paid by it for his services. As such, this information is devoid of any probative value as to the issues here. A similar result is reached regarding the letter from the Executive Director of the Florida Pharmacy Association whose opinion seems to be that cost is not relevant and the only appropriate concern is the quality of service performed. Carrying this apparent theory forward, it would appear that if the provider performs well, whatever is charged should be approved for payment. This is simply not sound fiscal policy especially when the taxpayers' funds are being spent and it is rejected here. Mr. Doll found the report of the auditors to be reasonable and fair. However, after the petition in this case was filed, he made his own survey to corroborate the auditor's figures. His inquiry convinced him that the normal rate for a consultant pharmacist to conduct a regimen review would be $2.00 per bed per review. Since Petitioner here has 120 beds, this would then total $240.00 per month for this service - exactly one half of what Mr. Fortune was paid in 1982-1983. The inflation rate being minimal for the period, it would be appropriate to accept that figure as appropriate for the time in question. This survey, during which he contacted 6 of 13 local providers, specifically excluded any provider which retained Mr. Fortune as consulting pharmacist. Mr. Doll's survey is consistent with a DHRS memorandum of October 21, 1982, from the administrator of the Medicaid Program Analysis branch to his supervisor which suggested the appropriate average monthly cost for a drug regimen review for a 100 bed facility was $200.00. Though this memorandum was intended as an internal working paper for budget planning purposes and not as a guide for providers, it does tend to confirm Mr. Doll's analysis of the situation and tend to indicate that the auditor's figure is somewhat low. Concerning the sums paid to Mrs. Fortune for her services as activities coordinator, here again the auditors compared the sums paid to those paid by three other area providers to arrive at a reasonable cost for the service. These figures showed: Bluffs N/H 120 beds $4.50/hr 1 yr exp. Crestview N/H 60 beds 5.00/hr 10 yr exp. Pensacola H/C 118 beds 5.25/hr 8 yr exp. Mrs. Fortune was allowed the maximum salary rate of $5.25 per hour. Since she only works at the center 50 percent of the time, (one half of a regular 40 hour week) 20 hours at $5.25 per hour multiplied by 52 weeks per year results in a maximum of $5,460.00 allowable out of the $6,987.00 claimed leaving a disallowed balance of $1,527.00. This does not even consider Mr. Pileggi's testimony that Mrs. Fortune does more than only activities work when she is at the center. She is being paid to be activities coordinator while there not for other services, out of this account. It must be noted that, in that regard, Mr. Pillegi indicated that Mrs. Fortune's additional services resulted in a higher 1982 compensation being approved by the auditors without question. It is unfortunate that Mr. Pillegi had no specifics to back this claim since Mrs. Fortune kept no records of her work hours and accomplishments. In the absence of some supporting evidence, the award of the auditors as outlined above appears both reasonable and fair. Petitioner rejects the auditors survey on the basis that the regulation in question, Chapter 9, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services manual HIM-15 requires audit surveys of all facilities in a given area. The reference to this provision for these particular reimbursements is in error as it pertains to another subject entirely. In any event, Petitioner presented argument, not evidence to establish that those facilities surveyed by the auditors were not all the comparable facilities in the area.
