Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, United Health, Inc. (United), is the owner and operator of approximately one hundred and twenty-three nursing homes in thirteen states. In the State of Florida, it owns and operates sixteen nursing homes and one intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded that are licensed by respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). At issue in this proceeding are the cost reports and supplemental schedules filed by thirteen nursing home facilities.1 In accordance with Medicaid guidelines, petitioner was required to annually submit cost reports to HRS reflecting its allowable costs in providing Medicaid services to its patients. HRS is designated as the state agency responsible for the administration of Medicaid funds under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. In order to be reimbursed for said costs, the facility was required to show that the costs were in conformity with Federal and State Medicaid reimbursement principles. Those principles are embodied in the Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan (Plan) adopted by the State.2 This document contains the reimbursement methodology to be used for nursing homes who provide Medicaid services. In addition, providers must comply with Health Insurance Manual 15 (HIM-15), a compendium of federal cost reimbursement guidelines utilized by HRS, and generally accepted accounting principles. By letter dated September 9, 1985 petitioner requested that HRS adjust its July 1, 1985 reimbursement rates for the thirteen facilities to reflect certain annualized costs incurred during the preceding fiscal year ending December 31, 1984. According to the letter, the adjustment was appropriate under Section V.B.I.b. of the September 1, 1984 Plan. On October 21, 1985, an HRS Medicaid cost reimbursement analyst issued a letter denying the request on the following grounds: Our review of the information submitted with the fiscal year end 12/31/84 cost reports revealed that the annualized operating and patient care costs were not documented to be new and expanded services or related to licensure and certification requirements. The annualized property cost appeared to be 1 2 various purchases, repairs and maintenance and was not documented to be capital improvements. The denial prompted the instant proceeding. B. Reimbursement Principles In General Under the Medicaid reimbursement plan adopted for use in Florida, nursing homes are reimbursed by HRS on a prospective basis for their allowable costs incurred in providing Medicaid services. This method is commonly referred to as the prospective plan, and has been in use since 1977. Under this concept, a nursing home files with HRS, within ninety days after the close of its fiscal year, a cost report reflecting its actual costs for the immediate preceding fiscal year. Within the next ninety days, the nursing home is given a per diem reimbursement rate (or ceiling) to be used during the following twelve months.3 For example, if a provider's fiscal year ended December 31, 1984, its cost report would be due by March 31, 1985. HRS would then provide estimated reimbursement rates to be used during the period from July 1, 1985 through June 30, 1986. As can be seen, there is a time lag between the end of a cost reporting year and the provider's receiving the new rate. The new reimbursement rate is based upon the provider's actual costs in the preceding fiscal year (reporting period) adjusted upward by an inflation factor that is intended to compensate the provider for cost increases caused by inflation. The prospective plan enables a provider to know in advance what rates it will be paid for Medicaid services during that year rather than being repaid on a retroactive basis. If a provider operates efficiently at a level below the ceiling, it is "rewarded" being allowed to keep a portion of the difference. Conversely, if it exceeds the caps, it is penalized to the extent that it receives only the rates previously authorized by HRS, and must absorb the shortfall. At the same time, it should be noted that the reimbursement rate is not intended to cover all costs incurred by a provider, but only those that are reasonable and necessary in an efficiently operated facility. These unreimbursed costs are covered through other provider resources, or by a future cut in services. When the events herein occurred, there were two types of adjustments allowed under the prospective plan. The first adjustment is the inflation factor, and as noted above, it 3 authorizes the provider to adjust certain reported costs by the projected rate of inflation to offset anticipated cost increases due to inflation. However, because the prospective plan (and the inflation factor) ignores other cost increases that occur during the given year, HRS devised a second type of adjustment for providers to use. This adjustment is known as the gross-up provision, and allows the annualization of certain costs incurred by a provider during a portion of the reporting period. The concept itself .s embodied in subparagraph B.1.b. of Part V of the September 1, 1984 Plan. Its use may be illustrated with the following example. A provider constructs an addition to its facility with an in-service date at the end of the sixth month of the reporting period. By reflecting only the depreciation associated with the addition during the last six months of the reporting period, the facility understates its actual costs, and is reimbursed for only one-half of the facility's depreciation during the following year. Under the gross-up provision the provider grosses up, or annualizes, the reported cost to give it a full year's effect, thereby ensuring that the next year's rates will be more realistic. Although the provision has application to this proceeding, over objection by the nursing home industry it was eliminated from the Plan on October 1, 1985 and is no longer available to providers. At hearing HRS contended the provision should have been eliminated in 1984, but through oversight remained in effect until 1985. However this contention is rejected as not being credible, and is contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Finally, neither party could recall if a request under this provision had ever been filed. They do acknowledge that HRS has never approved such a request during the more than two years when the provision was operative. In addition to the gross-up and inflation provisions, there exists an alternative means for additional rate reimbursement through what is known as the interim rate provision. Under this provision, a provider can request an interim rate increase from HRS during the period when its prospective rates are in effect to cover major unexpected costs. Assuming a request is valid and substantiated, a provider is eligible for immediate cash relief dating back to the date of the actual expense. However, because of HRS' concern that this provision was being "abused", only those costs which exceed $5,000 and cause a change of 1% or more in the total prospective per diem rate are now eligible for reimbursement. These monetary thresholds on interim rate requests became effective September 1, 1984. When these higher thresholds were imposed, HRS made representations to the nursing home industry that a provider could still utilize the gross-up provision to cover other unexpected costs. Finally, it is noted that unlike the prospective rate, an interim rate is cost settled. This means the provider's cost reports are later audited, and excess reimbursements must be repaid to HRS. This differs from the prospective plan where any "overpayments" are not subject to recoupment by HRS. Even so, a provider is limited by the reasonableness and prudent buyer concepts which serve as a check on potential abuse by a provider. The Gross-Up Feature In its relevant form, the gross-up provision was first adopted for use by HRS in its April 1, 1983 Plan.4 It required HRS to: Review and adjust each provider's cost report referred to in A. (1.) as follows: * * * b. to compensate for new and expanded or discontinued services, licensure and certification requirements, and capital improvements which occurred during the reporting year but were not included or totally accounted for in the cost report. This language was incorporated with only minor changes into the September 1, 1984 Plan and is applicable to the cost reports in issue. In its 1984 form, the provision required HRS to review and adjust each provider's cost report as follows: b. To compensate for new and expanded or discontinued services, licensure and certification requirements, and capital improvements not included or totally accounted for in the reporting year. For additional costs to be provided, the provider must furnish adequate supporting documentation. 4 Accordingly, if a cost fits within one of the three categories, HRS is required to adjust a provider's report to compensate it for the expenditure. The April 1, 1983 Plan was negotiated by the nursing home industry and HRS representatives at a meeting in Gainesville, Florida. For this reason, it is commonly referred to as the Gainesville Plan. Through testimony of negotiators who participated at the meeting, it was established that the Plan had three objectives: to give proper payment to nursing homes; to meet state and federal regulations; and to help upgrade care in the nursing homes. At the same time, the negotiators recognized that a prospective plan based on inFla.ion alone overlooked other cost increases that occurred during a given year. Therefore, the gross-up provision was added to the Plan to ensure that providers could estimate (and recoup) their future costs in as accurate a manner as possible, and to bring the plan into compliance with federal guidelines. It was also designed to ensure that a provider did not have to wait an extraordinarily long time for expenses to be recognized. In addition, HRS was hopeful that the gross-up provision would minimize the providers' reliance upon the interim rate feature (which was intended to cover only major items) thereby reducing the agency's overall workload. Indeed, the interim and gross-up features were intended to complement each other, in that one provided immediate relief on major unexpected items while the other provided a means to adjust partial year costs incurred during the reporting period. The implementation of thresholds on the interim rate provision in September, 1984 increased the importance of the gross-up provision to handle smaller items. Therefore, HRS' contention that the interim and gross-up provisions are in conflict is hereby rejected. In order for a cost to be eligible for annualization, it must fall within one of three categories: new or expanded service, a capital improvement, or a cost to meet HRS' licensure and certification requirements. The parties have stipulated that HRS' denial of United's request was based solely upon HRS' perception that the costs did not fall within any of the three categories. The three types of costs within the feature are not defined in the Plan. Testimony from the Plan's negotiators established that the language in the gross-up feature was meant to be construed broadly and to encompass many costs. For this reason, no limitations were written into the Plan. Even so, the provision was not intended to give carte blanche authority to the providers to annualize every partial cost. There is conflicting testimony regarding the meaning of the term "capital improvement" and what expenditures are included within this category. However, Sections 108.1 and 108.2 of HIM-15, of which the undersigned has taken official notice, define a capital item as follows: If a depreciable asset has, at the time of its acquisition, an estimated useful life of at least 2 years and a historical cost of at least $500, its cost must be capitalized, and written off ratably over the estimated useful life of the asset. . . * * * Betterments and improvements extend the life or increase the productivity of an asset as opposed to repairs and maintenance which either restore the asset to, or maintain it at, its normal or expected service life. Repairs and maintenance costs are always allowed in the current accounting period. With respect to the costs of betterments and improvements, the guidelines established in Section 108.1 must be followed, i.e., if the cost of a betterment or improvement to an asset is $500 or more and the estimated useful life of the asset is extended beyond its original estimated life by at least 2 years, or if the productivity of the asset is increased significantly over its original productivity, then the cost must be capitalized. The above guidelines are more credible and persuasive than the limited definition of capital item enunciated at final hearing by HRS personnel. Therefore, it is found that the HIM-15 definition is applicable to the gross-up feature and will be used to determine the validity of petitioner's claim to gross up certain expenditures. There is also conflicting testimony as to what the term "new and expanded or discontinued services" includes. Petitioner construes this item to include any costs that increase the volume of services to a resident. Therefore, petitioner posits that an increase in staffing which likewise increases services to residents is subject to annualization. Conversely, HRS construes the term to cover any costs for new or expanded services that enable a facility to provide patients with services not previously provided or to expand an existing service to more patients in the facility. The latter definition is more credible and persuasive and will be used by the undersigned in evaluating petitioner's request. Finally, petitioner interprets the term "licensure and certification requirements" to cover any costs incurred to meet staffing requirements that are required by HRS rules. According to petitioner, the category would include expenditures that are made for so-called preventive maintenance purposes and to avoid HRS sanctions. On the other hand, HRS construes the language to cover costs incurred by a provider to either meet a new licensure and certification requirement, or to correct a cited deficiency. It also points out that salary increases were intended to be covered by the inflation factor rather than through this feature of the plan. This construction of the term is more reasonable, and is hereby accepted as being the more credible and persuasive. Petitioner's Request Petitioner's fiscal year ends on December 31. According to HRS requirements its cost reports must be filed by the following March 31. In accordance with that requirement petitioner timely filed its December 31, 1984 cost reports for the thirteen facilities on or before March 31, 1985. The reports have been received into evidence as petitioner's composite exhibit 3. Attached to the reports were schedules supporting a request for gross-up of certain capital items, additions and deletions of various personnel, and union salary increases that exceeded the inflation rate. The parties have not identified the actual dollar value of the items since only the concepts are in issue. In preparing the supporting schedules, United's assistant director of research reviewed all so-called capital items purchased by the thirteen facilities during the fiscal year, and determined which were purchased after the beginning of the year.5 He then calculated the depreciation on those 5 expenditures made after the beginning of the year and has included those amounts on the supporting schedules to be annualized. Consistent with the definition contained in Sections 108.1 and 108.2 of HIM-15, those items that are in excess of $500 (after annualization), that extend the useful life of the asset for two years or more, or that increase or extend the productivity of the asset are subject to annualization. It should be noted that repairs and maintenance items, as defined in Sections 108.1 and 108.2, are excluded from this category. Petitioner next seeks to adjust its rates by grossing up the net increase in costs associated with additions and deletions of various staff during the reporting period. Any net staffing additions that provide patients with services not previously provided or that expand an existing service to more patients in a given facility are properly subject to the gross- up provision. All others should be denied. Petitioner also contends that these costs should be considered as a licensure and certification requirement since they satisfy staffing requirements under HRS rules. To the extent the filling of old positions occurred, such expenditures are appropriately covered by the gross-up provision. The remainder do not fall within the purview of the provision. Finally, petitioner seeks to adjust its rates to cover all salary increases over and above the inflation factor that were awarded to union employees pursuant to its union contract. Under petitioner's theory, if such costs were not paid, United stood to lose staff through a strike which in turn could result in licensure and certification problems. But these concerns are speculative in nature, and such an interpretation would result in automatic approval of any salary increase called for by a union contract, no matter how unreasonable it might be. Since the expenditures do not meet the previously cited criteria, they must be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner's request to have its July 1, 1985 reimbursement rates adjusted for thirteen facilities to reflect annualized costs as submitted on supplemental schedules with its 1984 cost reports be approved in part, as set forth in the conclusions of law portion of this order. The remaining part of its request should be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1986.
The Issue What amount should be awarded Petitioners as attorney's fees and costs in the underlying case in this matter, Savona et al. v. AHCA, Case No. 97-5909RU (DOAH Amended Final Order On Remand issued November 6, 1998).
Findings Of Fact Petitioners challenged a non-rule statement and policy of Respondent which limited physicians' Medicare cost-sharing reimbursement to the rate for Medicaid. Petitioners submitted an itemized statement of the requested hours, a summary of hours by stages of the case, and a summary of total hours, rates, and expenses requested. The hours and rates are supported by the testimony of Petitioners' counsel, David K. Miller, and corroborated by testimony of Attorney Samatha Boge and Attorney Nancy Linnan. An affidavit of Attorney Barry Richard in a related case adds further corroboration to hourly rates submitted by Petitioners' counsel. Respondent did not present independent evidence concerning proper number of hours, rates or expenses. Respondent did challenge some portions of the hours claimed by Petitioners' counsel and opposed the claim for fees and costs in its entirety. As established by testimony of David K. Miller, Samantha Boge, and Nancy Linnan, all attorneys licensed and practicing in Florida, the time spent by Petitioners’ attorneys in the initial proceeding and their hourly rates were reasonable. Further corroboration of testimony regarding hourly rates was presented by an affidavit from Barry Richard, an attorney in a related case. Petitioners have revised the number of hours properly allocated to this case and reduced same by 1.9 hours from hours allocated to M. Stephen Turner, one of the Petitioners’ attorneys. Respondent also challenges 3.9 hours charged by Petitioners' attorneys for monitoring of legislation, specifically senate bill 384, amending the law governing Petitioners rights to payment on crossover claims. The claim of counsel for Petitioners that this 3.9 hours (performed by Attorney Jody Chase) is relevant to proceedings in the underlying action, is not credited and these hours are also deducted from Petitioners’ claim for fees and costs. Petitioners request as adjusted is summarized as follows: M. Stephen Turner 73.7 hours@ $300/hr.= $22,110.00 David K. Miller 240.4 hours@ $225/hr.= 54,090.00 15.0 hours@ $225/hr.= 3,375.00 Other Partners .10 hours@ $225/hr.= 22.50 Associate .3 hours@ $175/hr.= 52.50 Paralegals 2.4 hours@ $ 75/hr.= $180.00 Fees $79,830.00 Expenses 2,280.00 Total $82,110.00 As modified above, the hours and rates requested are found to be reasonable in view of the novelty and complexity of issues, level of legal skills required, and the amount potentially at stake to Petitioners. Particularly, the amount awarded is justified in view of customary amounts charged or awarded for comparable services. The requested expense reimbursement is also reasonable. The expenses are of the kind typically billed to clients in addition to the hourly rate charged.
Findings Of Fact Provider received the correspondence giving notice of Provider’s right to an administrative hearing regarding the improper Medicaid reimbursement. Provider filed a petition requesting an administrative hearing, and then caused that petition to be withdrawn and the administrative hearing case to be closed. Provider chose not to dispute the facts set forth in the letter dated August 1, 2011. The facts alleged in the letter are hereby deemed admitted, including the total improper reimbursement amount of twelve thousand, one hundred sixty-four dollars ($12,164.00). The Agency hereby adopts the facts as set forth in the letter, including the improper reimbursement amount of twelve thousand, one hundred sixty-four dollars ($12,164.00). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The Agency incorporates and adopts each and every relevant statement and conclusion of law set forth in the August 1, 2011, letter. The admitted facts support the legal conclusion that the improper reimbursement in the amount of twelve thousand, one hundred sixty-four dollars ($12,164.00) was appropriate. As partial payment has previously been made, five thousand, eight hundred sixty-four dollars ($5,864.00) is now due and owing from Provider to the Agency. Based on the foregoing it is ORDERD AND ADJUDGED that Provider remit, forthwith, the amount of five thousand, eight hundred sixty-four dollars ($5,864). Provider’s request for an administrative hearing is hereby dismissed. DONE and ORDERED on this the We day of fojtimla__. 2012, in Tallahassee, Florida. and Mf SECRETARY Agency for Health Care Administration A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Rachic’ Wilson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration (Interoffice Mail) Roberto E. Moran, Esq. Rasco, Klock, Reininger, et al 283 Catalonia Avenue Second Floor Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (U.S. Mail) June C. McKinney Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Mike Blackburn, Chief, Medicaid Program Integrity Finance and Accounting HOA Agency for Persons with Disabilities (Facility) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to the above named addressees by U.S. Mail on this the Ainot Sek W12. = —az, Richard Shoop, Esquire Agency Clerk State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 412-3630
Conclusions THIS CAUSE came before me for issuance of a Final Order on an August 1, 2011, letter from the Agency for Health Care Administration (“Agency”) to Bay Point Schools, Inc. (“Provider”) notifying Provider that it had been improperly reimbursed twelve thousand, one hundred sixty-four dollars ($12,264.00) by Medicaid. The August 1, 2011, letter indicated that partial payment had already been remitted by Provider and that five thousand, eight hundred sixty-four dollars ($5,864.00) remained due and owing from Provider to the Agency. The August 1, 2011, letter provided full disclosure and notice to Provider of procedures for requesting an administrative hearing to contest the allegations made in the letter. Provider filed a petition with the Agency requesting a formal administrative hearing on September 6, 2011. The Agency forwarded Provider’s hearing request to the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”) for a formal administrative hearing. On March 9, 2012, Provider filed a Motion to Withdraw Petition for Formal Hearing. DOAH issued an Order Filed September 6, 2012 1:46 PM Division of Administrative Hearings Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction on March 12, 2012, closing the above-styled cause and relinquishing jurisdiction back to the Agency.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to receive Health Insurance Subsidy payments retroactive to July 1995, the month she began to receive retirement benefits from the Respondent as the surviving spouse of a member of the Florida Retirement System.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Division is, and was at the times material to this case, the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering the Florida retirement and pension systems. Section 121.025, Florida Statutes (1995). The Division is, and was at the times material to this case, also responsible for administering the Retiree Health Insurance Subsidy. Section 112.363(7), Florida Statutes (1995). Harold Mosser, the former husband of Mrs. Kirkley, retired from his job as a school principal in August 1979, and he was a member of the Florida Retirement System. Mr. Mosser received a monthly state retirement benefit, and, as a supplement to the retirement benefit, he received a monthly Health Insurance Subsidy. Mrs. Kirkley retired from her job as a schoolteacher in 1989, and she is a member of the Florida Retirement System. Since her retirement, Mrs. Kirkley has received a monthly state retirement benefit and a monthly Health Insurance Subsidy. Mr. Mosser died on April 28, 1995. Mrs. Kirkley did not advise the Division of Mr. Mosser's death. Rather, the Division learned of his death in July 1995, when conducting a routine check of the Bureau of Vital Statistics "death tape." As Mr. Mosser's surviving spouse and the person he named as his joint annuitant, Mrs. Kirkley was entitled to receive an "Option 3" monthly retirement benefit for the remainder of her lifetime, pursuant to Section 121.09, Florida Statutes (1995). Mrs. Kirkley was also eligible to receive a monthly Health Insurance Subsidy upon filing an application for the subsidy with the Division, and this benefit included payment of the subsidy from the date of Mr. Mosser's death or for the six months prior to the date the application was filed.1 In a Statement of Retirement Benefit Payments dated 1/31/95, the components of Mr. Mossers's monthly retirement benefit payments were identified. At the time of his death, Mr. Mosser received a gross monthly retirement benefit of $1,730.60, plus a Health Insurance Subsidy of $90.00, minus $250.00 withholding tax, for total net monthly benefits of $1,570.60. Because the Division did not learn of Mr. Mosser's death until July 1995, his monthly benefit check was issued in May and June 1995 and electronically deposited in NationsBank. When the Division learned of Mr. Mosser's death, a Division representative tried to reach Mrs. Kirkley by telephone but could not obtain her unlisted telephone number. The representative then sent Mrs. Kirkley a letter dated July 20, 1995, in which the representative advised Mrs. Kirkley that Mr. Mosser's estate was entitled to receive his benefits for the month of April 1995 in the net amount of $1,570.60 and that she must apply for a continuing monthly benefit as Mr. Mosser's designated beneficiary. The representative also advised Mrs. Kirkley to complete the Division Form FST-11b that was enclosed with the letter and to return it to the Division together with Mr. Mosser's death certificate. Mrs. Kirkley completed the form enclosed with the letter and mailed it to the Division as directed. The Division changed Mr. Mosser's account over to Mrs. Kirkley, and she began receiving a monthly retirement benefit check in October 1995.2 Mr. Mosser's Health Insurance Subsidy was terminated effective July 1995, and the net monthly benefit received by Mrs. Kirkley as Mr. Mosser's beneficiary did not include a Health Insurance Subsidy payment. It is the Division's practice to send each retiree added to the system a "retiree packet" that includes, among other things, an application for the Health Insurance Subsidy and an explanation of the subsidy, as well as a booklet containing an explanation of all of the benefits available to retirees and beneficiaries under the Florida Retirement System. The process of sending out the retiree packets is automated, so that a packet is sent to every retiree and beneficiary when they are first entered into the system. Pursuant to the Division's regular practice, Mrs. Kirkley would have been sent the retiree packet in October 1995, when she was added to the system as Mr. Mosser's beneficiary. The Division also sends retirees and beneficiaries an annual newsletter, and the Health Insurance Subsidy was discussed in the 1995 and 1996 newsletters. Mrs. Kirkley received a Statement of Retirement Benefit Payments, as Mr. Mosser's beneficiary, each July, December, and January. This statement includes a separate entry for the Health Insurance Subsidy, with the amount of the subsidy noted; Mrs. Kirkley would have been aware of this entry because the Statement of Retirement Benefit Payments that she had been receiving on her own account would have shown an amount paid as her Health Insurance Subsidy. Mrs. Kirkley received her first statement in December 1995, and it would have been apparent from the statement that no amount was included for the Health Insurance Subsidy. Mrs. Kirkley does not recall having any direct contact with the Division between the time she submitted her application for the retirement benefit as Mr. Mosser's beneficiary and late September 1997, when she called the Division to request that the monthly check be electronically deposited in her bank account. During the conversation in September 1997, the Division's representative advised Mrs. Kirkley that she was entitled to receive a monthly Health Insurance Subsidy as Mr. Mosser's surviving spouse, in addition to the monthly retirement benefit she received as Mr. Mosser's beneficiary. The representative told Mrs. Kirkley that she would send her an application for the Health Insurance Subsidy, which the representative did in September 1997. Mrs. Kirkley completed the application she received from the Division and sent it to the Division with a cover letter dated October 17, 1997. The application required certification of health insurance coverage, which Mrs. Kirkley satisfied by attaching a copy of her Medicare Health Insurance card. Mrs. Kirkley did not hear anything from the Division for quite a long time. She contacted the Division and was told that they had not received her application for the Health Insurance Subsidy. The Division sent her another application form, which she completed and sent to the Division in January 1998, and she began receiving a monthly Health Insurance Subsidy as Mr. Mosser's surviving spouse; she also received retroactive benefits effective July 1997 through December 1997, a period of six months prior to January 1998. The Division eventually located Mrs. Kirkley's October 1997 application, and it advised her in a letter dated April 6, 1998, that she would receive retroactive Health Insurance Subsidy payments for an additional three months, moving the effective date of her entitlement to the benefits back to April 1997. Including the retroactive benefits she received, Mrs. Kirkley has been receiving a Health Insurance Subsidy as Mr. Mosser's surviving spouse since April 1997. She also had the benefit of Mr. Mosser's May and June 1995 Health Insurance Subsidy, which were paid by the Division because it was not aware that Mr. Mosser was deceased. Mrs. Kirkley seeks to recover an additional $1890.00 in retroactive Health Insurance Subsidy payments as Mr. Mosser's surviving spouse, which is the difference between the total Health Insurance Subsidy payments she has received and the total Health Insurance Subsidy payments she would have received had the benefits been paid to her retroactive to Mr. Mosser's death (21 months x $90.00 per month = $1890.00). Summary The evidence presented by Mrs. Kirkley is insufficient to establish her entitlement to retroactive Health Insurance Subsidy payments from July 1995 to March 1997. It is uncontroverted that she submitted her application for the Health Insurance Subsidy with her certification of health insurance coverage in October 1997 and that the Division paid retroactive Health Insurance Subsidy payments for the six months prior to the date it received the application. In addition, Mrs. Kirkley has not presented sufficient evidence to establish that the Division should be required to pay her the additional retroactive Health Insurance Subsidy payments because it failed to send her an application until September 1997. The Division did not make any specific representations to her regarding her entitlement to the Health Insurance Subsidy payments until September 1997, and she failed to establish by the greater weight of the credible evidence that she did not receive any general information from the Division that included information regarding the Health Insurance Subsidy. In addition, Mrs. Kirkley knew or should have known in December 1995 that she was not receiving a Health Insurance Subsidy as Mr. Mosser's surviving spouse, when she received her first statement detailing the components of her gross monthly benefit as Mr. Mosser's beneficiary, and she could have made inquiry of the Division at that time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Review of Final Agency Action filed by Mary J. Mosser, now known as Mary J. Kirkley. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November, 2001.
Findings Of Fact In 1975 the Florida Legislature passed the Medical Malpractice Reform Act, Chapter 75-9, Laws of Florida, now codified in Chapter 768, Florida Statutes. Part of this legislative package included the creation of the Fund. This legislation was passed in response to a medical malpractice insurance crisis which arose when the primary underwriter for the Florida Medical Association sought to stop issuing medical malpractice policies in Florida, thus making it difficult, if not impossible, for physicians or hospitals to obtain medical malpractice insurance coverage at reasonable rates. As a result of this problem, many physicians began to practice defensive medicine, curtail or abandon their practices or practice without coverage of any kind. The Fund is a private not-for-profit organization, participation in which is totally voluntary for its member health care providers. Insofar as Petitioners are concerned, membership in the Fund is but one of several options available to provide legally required evidence of financial responsibility in order to obtain licensure as a hospital facility in Florida. In fact, of the approximately 260 hospitals in Florida, only 125 satisfy their financial responsibility requirement via membership in the Fund. Physicians, hospitals, health maintenance organizations and ambulatory surgical centers who become members of the Fund must maintain at least $100,000 in primary professional liability insurance. Membership in the Fund grants to each participant a limitation of liability above the $100,000 in primary coverage. To the extent that any settlement or judgment exceeds the primary coverage of the participant, it is paid by the Fund without limitation. The Fund is operated subject to the supervision and approval of a board of governors whose membership is required by law to consist of representatives of the insurance industry, the legal and medical professions, physicians' insurers, hospitals, hospitals' insurers and the general public. The Department is charged by statute with certain regulatory functions concerning the Fund. The base fee for Fund membership is set by statute at $500 for physicians, after an initial $1,000 enrollment fee for the first year of participation, and at $300 per bed for hospital members. The statute requires the Department to set additional fees based upon the classifications of health care providers contained in the statute. In the event that base fees are insufficient to pay all claims asserted against the Fund for a given Fund year, the Department is empowered, upon request of the Board of Governors of the Fund, to order additional assessments against Fund participants to meet any such deficiency. Under the original legislation, all classes of health care providers could be assessed unlimited amounts to make up any deficiencies. As a result of legislative amendments in 1976, however, the amount which participants, other than hospitals, could be assessed was limited to the amount each Fund member had paid to join the Fund for that particular coverage year. 1976 legislative amendments also required that each fiscal year of the Fund be operated independently of preceding fiscal years, and further required that occurrences giving rise to claims in a particular Fund year be paid only from fees or investment income on these fees collected for that particular year. Thus, it is entirely possible for the Fund to experience deficits in a given year, and yet hold surplus funds for other years. The dispute in these consolidated proceedings arises from assessments for deficits incurred for the Fund years 1977-1978 and 1978-1979. Each of the hospitals named as Petitioners in the Petition for Administrative Proceedings in Case No. 82-776 were members of the Fund during the Fund year 1977-1978. Each of the hospitals named in the style and listed on Exhibit "A" to the Amendment to Petition for Administrative Proceedings in Case Nos. 82-530 and 82-571 were members of the Fund during the Fund year 1978-1979. On October 31, 1981, the Fund certified to the Department a deficiency in the amount of $1,350,672 for the Fund year 1977-1978. On January 18, 1982, the Fund certified to the Department an additional deficiency for the Fund year 1977-1978 in the amount of $1,759,591. On January 18, 1982, the Fund certified to the Department a deficiency of $13,935,927 for the Fund year 1978-1979. On January 13, 1982, the Department issued an "order" assessing various classes of health care providers the deficiency originally certified by the Fund for the Fund year 1977-1978. The "order" of January 13, 1982, was amended by the "order" of February 1, 1982, for the Fund year 1977-1973. The amended order contained the same dollar amount of assessments, but altered the amount charged to various classes of Fund members. On February 17, 1982, the Department issued its "order" granting the second assessment for the Fund year 1977-1978. On January 22, 1982, the Department issued its "order" granting the assessment for the 1978-1979 Fund year. The Department has not promulgated any rules pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pertaining to its regulation of or duties in conjunction with the Fund under Section 768.54, Florida Statutes. As members of the Fund, each of the Petitioners' interests are substantially affected by the Orders of January 13, 1982; January 22, 1982; February 1, 1982; and February 17, 1982. For the Fund year 1977-1978 the total assessment ordered by the Department is $3,110,263. The total assessment for the Fund year 1978-1979 is $13,935,972. For the Fund year 1977-1978, physicians and professional association members are proposed to be assessed $1,730,207. During the Fund year 1977-1978, hospital members paid into the Fund, exclusive of interest earned on the fees, the amount of $5,292,498. For the Fund year 1977-1978, physicians and professional association members paid into the Fund the sum of $2,326,541. For the Fund year 1978-1979, hospital members paid into the Fund, exclusive of interest earned on their fees, the sum of $5,627,553. Interest earned through December 31, 1981, on these fees is $1,725,845. For the Fund year 1978-1979, physicians and professional association members paid into the Fund, exclusive of interest earned on their fees, the sum of $2,411,205. Interest earned through December 31, 1981, on the fees contributed by physicians and professional associations is $739,463. For the Fund year 1977-1978, the proposed assessments against hospital members of the Fund is $1,374,827. For the Fund year 1978-1979, the Fund retained the services of an independent actuarial firm to study and recommend appropriate additional fees to charge its members. The following table reflects the statutory base fees, the fees recommended by the actuary, the fees sought by the Fund and the fees ordered by the Department of Insurance for the 1977-1978 Fund year. Base Fees Actuary's Additional Additional Paid Recommended Fees Fees Pursuant Additional Requested Ordered to Stat. Fees by FPCF By DOI Class I Physicians $ $ $ $ Dade/Broward Co. 500.00 2,233.00 2,233.00 -0- Rest of State 500.00 l,749.00 1,749.00 -0- Class II Physicians Dade/Broward Co. 500.00 4,420.00 4,420.00 -0- Rest of State 500.00 3,549.00 3,549.00 -0- Class III Physicians Dade/Broward Co. 500.00 12,619.00 12,619.00 -0- Rest of State 500.00 10,297.00 10,297.00 -0- Hospitals (per occupied bed) 300.00 222.00 222.00 -0- Ambiatory Surgical Centers -0- 22.00 22.00 -0- (per 100 patients) Health Maintenance Organizations -0- 150.00 150.00 -0- (per 100 subscribers) Professional -0- 20 percent of additional (SAME) -0- fee to be paid by each individual member For the Fund year 1978-1979, the Department made no independent actuarial study of the recommended fees proposed by the independent actuary employed by the Fund, and no member of the Casualty Actuarial Society evaluated the Fund's recommendations on behalf of the Department. The independent actuary employed by the Fund was the only actuary who presented any evidence at the hearing conducted by the Department on the Fund's fee increase request for the Fund year 1978-1979. Each year since the Fund year 1977-1979 the Fund has employed the services of an actuary who, among other things, projected the expected losses above the claims previously paid and reserves established for known claims. These expected losses are reported as IBNR ("incurred but not reported") for each Fund year. The IBNR projected by the actuary employed by the Fund in the most recent report (October 1981) for the Fund year 1977-1978 is $6,306,036, and for the Fund year 1978-1979 is $15,965,324. The Department computed the portion of the assessment to be paid by the different classes of health care providers for the Fund year 1977-1978 based upon an approach known as the "indicated rate method." It is concluded from the record that this method is the most feasible of all suggested alternatives under existing law for reflecting the statutory classifications and, at the same time, providing immediate funds necessary to meet all claims against the Fund. This method is represented by the following formula: The Department started with rates which should have been charged each class in 1981-1982. This is called the "indicated rate by class." (The indicated rates were taken from the October, 1980 report by the Fund actuary.) The Department then applied the following formula for each class: Indicated Rate by Class x Number of Members in the Class = Total indicated fees by Class Total Indicated Fees by Class - Total Indicated Fees for ALL Classes Percentage of Indicated Fees by Class. Percentage of Indicated Fee by Class x Total Expected Loss for ALL Classes Expected Loss by Class. (Expected loss is all losses for the fund year included claims previously paid, reserves established on claims asserted and IBNR (incurred but not reported) Expected Loss by Class - Actual Fees paid by Class = Potential Loss Assessment by Class. Potential Loss Assessment by Class - Potential Loss Assessment for ALL Classes Percentage of Potential Loss Assessment by Class. Percentage of Potential Loss Assessment by Class x Total Assessment to be Ordered by the DOI = Amount of Assessment by Class. The following chart shows the amount each class would have paid under the "indicated rate method" for the Fund year 1977-1978, and the amount actually proposed to be assessed in the "orders" of the Indicated Rate Assessment Department: Actual Assessment a) Class I Physicians $ 146,487.00 $ 138,000.00 b) Class II Physicians 213,502.00 438,297.00 c) Class III Physicians 2,195,383.00 813,048.00 d) Hospitals 521,560.00 1,374,827.00 e) HMO 614.00 Surgical Centers 1,381.00 79,953.00 Professional Associations 28,336.00 Based upon the "indicated rate method" and based upon the application of Section 768.54, Florida Statutes, employed by the Department, assessments for the Fund year 1977-1978 which would otherwise be attributable to physician members of the Fund in the approximate amount of $1,500,000 were not charged to any class of physician. Based upon the "indicated rate method" and based upon the application of Section 768.54, Florida Statutes, employed by the Department, assessments for the Fund year 1978-1979 otherwise attributable to physician members of the Fund in the approximate amount of $9,000,000 were not charged to any class of physicians. The assessments described in the "orders" of the Department for the Fund year 1977-1978 which could not be applied to physician members, based upon the Department's interpretation of Section 768.54, Florida Statutes, were spread among the other classes of health care providers based upon their percentage of "expected losses." The Petitioners in this case, each of whom are members of the Fund, consist of 30 government hospitals, 43 private, nonprofit hospitals, and seven private, for-profit hospitals. During the Fund years 1977-1978 and 1978-1979, the Fund consisted of the following classes and numbers of members: 1977-1978 1978-1979 a) Class I Physicians 1392 1516 b) Class II Physicians 814 971 c) Class III Physicians 1584 1690 d) Hospitals 120 130 e) HMO 2 3 f) Surgical Centers 11 14 g) Professional Associations 572 855 The "orders" of the Department dated January 13, 1982; January 22, 1982; February 1, 1982; and February 17, 1982, were the first time any member of the Fund has been assessed under Section 768.54, Florida Statutes. The fees paid into the Fund; the investment income earned through December 31, 1981, on such fees; the expenses incurred through December 31, 1981; the amounts paid on claims through December 31, 1981; reserves established through and the IBNR for each Fund year for 1975-1976 through 1980-1981 are reflected on the table on page 10a. (IBNR figures are projections of future losses prepared by the Fund's actuary in October 1981.) The rates applicable to physicians and hospital members of the Fund for the years 1977-1978 and 1978-1979 were the base fees provided in Section 768.54, Florida Statutes. No additional fees were set for those Fund years. The rate order for the 1978-1979 year entered by the Department on June 9, 1978, was not appealed. The Fund in fact experienced deficits in both Fund years in controversy in this proceeding. The Fund certified to the Department the amount of its projected deficit for the years in question. The amount of money ultimately certified by the Fund to the Department accurately reflects the amounts derived from the following formula: FUND YEAR: 1975-1976 1976-1977 1977-1978 FEES PAID $2,928,672 $6,303,257 $7,467,605 INTEREST EARNED 1,475,41 3,000,118 2,592,179 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES (54,846) (95,002) (148,113) NET FUNDS AVAILABLE 4,349,227 9,208,373 9,911,671 TO PAY LOSSES LOSSES PAID TO DATE (3,004,273) (6,869,395) (8,271,696) INDEMNITY EXPENSES (300,334) (343,433) (391,858) RESERVED LOSSES (971,733) (4,249,604) (3,663,348) RESERVED EXPENSES (57,584) (111,466) (172,869) PRESENT SURPLUS/DEFICIT (14,697) (2,365,525) (2,588,100) LOSSES INCURRED NOT YET REPORTED (IBNR) (AS OF 6/30/81) (1,189,136) (3,878,887) (7,970,235) FUND YEAR: 1978-1979 1979-1980 1980-1981 FEES PAID $8,060,374 $9,836,157 $11,225,275 INTEREST EARNED 2,543,698 2,589,547 1,882,319 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES (128,556) (279,838) (406,641) NET FUNDS AVAILABLE 10,475,506 12,145,866 12,700,953 TO PAY LOSSES LOSSES PAID TO DATE (9,760,650) (3,410,358) (37,500) INDEMNITY EXPENSES (532,197) (206,616) (32,619) RESERVED LOSSES (13,782,271) (6,445,000) (3,750,000) RESERVED EXPENSES (267,932) (342,787) (114,417) PRESENT SURPLUS/DEFICIT (13,867,544) (1,741,105) (8,766,417) LOSSES INCURRED NOT YET (14,979,237) (28,295,428) (51,500,564) REPORTED (IBNR) (AS OF 6/30/81) FUND YEAR: TOTALS FEES PAID $45,821,340 INTEREST EARNED 14,083,262 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES (1,113,006) NET FUNDS AVAILABLE 58,791,596 TO PAY LOSSES LOSSES PAID TO DATE (31,353,872) INDEMNITY EXPENSES (1,837,057) RESERVED LOSSES (32,861,956) RESERVED EXPENSES (1,067,055) PRESENT SURPLUS/DEFICIT (8,328,344) LOSSES INCURRED NOT YET (107,813,487) REPORTED (IBNR) (AS OF 6/30/81) Total fees paid during the Fund Year + Investment Income attributable to the Fund Year Expenses allocated to that Fund Year Amount paid on claims for that Fund Year Amount reserved for all known claims for that Fund Year. The Department entered orders levying the assessments on January 13, 1982; January 22, 1982; February 1, 1982; and February 17, 1982. The parties to this proceeding stipulated that the assessments entered by the Department for 1977-1978 and 1978-1979 are to be considered to be proposed agency action as to such parties. The Department limited the amount assessed against any physician member to an amount equal to the annual membership fee paid by the physician for the year giving use to the assessment. According to the "orders" of the Department for the Fund year 1977- 1978, Class III physicians' share of the assessment, based upon the assessment formula utilized, was in excess of the amount of membership fees paid by that group, and the balance was spread over the rest of the classes of health care providers. According to the "orders" of the Department for the Fund year 1978- 1979, Class I, II, and III physicians' share of the assessment, based upon the assessment formula utilized, was in excess of the amount of membership fees paid by those groups, and the balance was spread among those health care providers described in Section 768.54(1)(b)l.,5.,6., and 7., Florida Statutes. The Department, by order dated June 9, 1978, denied the Fund's request for additional fees for the year 1978-1979. In April 1981, at the request of the Department, the Fund filed a "Retrospective Rating Plan." This plan provided that at such time as the Fund dropped below 25 percent of the original fees paid in any fund year an assessment would be triggered. The plan further provided for the assessment to be based upon all settlements or final judgments entered but unpaid at the time of the assessment, and all reserves established by the Fund at the time of the assessment. This "Retrospective Rating Plan" was approved by the Department, but not adopted pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Although the Fund sought to amend the plan both before and after the assessments now at issue, the original plan remained in effect at all times material to this cause. Although Petitioners have not disputed the amount of the reserves set by the Fund, such reserves constitute a substantial portion of the assessment amounts requested by the Fund. The Department has not made any evaluation of the accuracy of the case reserves, nor has the Department made any analysis of the method employed by the Fund in setting case reserves. There was some evidence that the cash shortages experienced by the Fund for the Fund years 1977-1978 and 1978-1979 may have been caused in part by the manner in which the Fund has paid claims. In 1976 the Florida Legislature limited the amount which the Fund could payout on claims to $100,000 per person, per year. In addition, the law provides that reasonable attorneys' fees and costs shall be paid to a successful claimant within the first 90 days following a judgment or settlement. In most instances, the Fund does not inquire into the fee arrangement between plaintiffs and their attorneys. Moreover, no claim for attorneys' fees is required to be submitted to the Fund or the trial court to set a reasonable percent fee for such services. The Fund has indicated that for claims paid for the Fund years 1977-1978 and 1978-1979, the Fund simply assumed that attorneys' fees and costs equalled 40 percent of the amount of the settlement or judgment. In most cases, the Fund does not consider any portion of the attorneys' fees as having been paid by the primary insurance carrier. In some instances, it appears that payments made by the Fund may have disregarded the $100,000 per person, per year payout limitation, and in other instances the Fund has been ordered to pay amounts in excess of the statutory limit and has not pursued an appeal of such orders. In still other instances the Fund has purchased annuities to fund settlements or judgments, the cost of which annuities exceeded the $100,000 payout limitation. The Fund does not consider such payments to be subject to the payout limitation although no rights of ownership in the annuities are retained by the Fund. It is possible that the cumulative effect of these practices has been significant. Petitioners adduced evidence estimating "excess payments" by the Fund for 1977-1978 over the statutory limit could be as high as $2,684,737. For the Fund year 1978-1979 these "excess payments" could be as high as $4,827,690. Under the Department's application of Section 768.54, Florida Statutes, no physician member will again be assessed for the Fund years 1977- 1978 and 1978-1979. Yet, based upon the latest estimates by the Fund's consulting actuary, additional claims for those two years which have not yet been reported could reach as high as $22,949,472. Under the Department's construction of the statute, hospital members will have to pay all of these additional losses, if the actuary's projections prove correct.
Findings Of Fact In 1975 the Florida Legislature passed the Medical Malpractice Reform Act, Chapter 75-9, Laws of Florida, now codified in Chapter 768, Florida Statutes. Part of this legislative package included the creation of the Fund. This legislation was passed in response to a medical malpractice insurance crisis which arose when the primary underwriter for the Florida Medical Association sought to stop issuing medical malpractice policies in Florida, thus making it difficult, if not impossible, for physicians or hospitals to obtain medical malpractice insurance coverage at reasonable rates. As a result of this problem, many physicians began to practice defensive medicine, curtail or abandon their practices or practice without coverage of any kind. The Fund is a private not-for-profit organization, participation in which is totally voluntary for its member-health care providers. Insofar as Petitioners are concerned, membership in the Fund is but one of several options available to provide legally required evidence of financial responsibility in order to obtain licensure as a hospital facility in Florida. Physicians, hospitals, health maintenance organizations and ambulatory surgical centers who become members of the Fund must maintain at least $100,000 in primary professional liability insurance. Membership in the Fund grants to each participant a limitation of liability above the $100,000 in primary coverage. To the extent that any settlement or judgment exceeds the primary coverage of the participant, it is paid by the Fund without limitation. The Fund is operated subject to the supervision and approval of a board of governors whose membership is required by law to consist of representatives of the insurance industry, the legal and medical professions, physicians' insurers, hospitals, hospitals' insurers and the general public. The Department is charged by statute with certain regulatory functions concerning the Fund. As the law existed in 1980 a base fee for Fund membership was set by statute at $500 for physicians, after an initial $1,000 enrollment fee for the first year of participation, and at $300 per bed for hospital members. The statute required the Department to set additional fees based upon the classifications of health care providers contained in the statute. In the event that base fees are insufficient to pay all claims asserted against the Fund for a given fund year, the Department is empowered, upon request of the Board of Governors of the Fund, to order assessments against Fund participants to meet any such deficiency. Under the original legislation, all classes of health care providers could be assessed unlimited amounts to make up any deficiencies. As a result of legislative amendments which became effective July 1, 1976, the amount which participants, other than hospitals, could be assessed was limited to the amount each Fund member had paid to join the Fund for that particular coverage year. 1976 legislative amendments also required that each fiscal year of the Fund, which runs from July 1 through June 30, be operated independently of preceding fiscal years, and further required that occurrences giving rise to claims in a particular fund year be paid only from fees or investment income on those fees collected for that particular year. Thus, it is entirely possible for the Fund to experience deficits in a given year, and yet hold surplus funds for other years. On March 14, 1983, the Department of Insurance issued a "Notice of Assessment for 1980-81 Fiscal Fund Year" (hereinafter called the "Notice of Assessment). (exh. 20) Notice of this Notice of Assessment was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, March 25, 1983, Vol. 9, no. 12. The Notice of Assessment announced that the Insurance Commissioner intended to levy and authorize the Fund to collect an assessment in the amount of $23,684,511 from those health care providers that were members of the Fund in fund year 1980-81 (exh. 20). Each of the hospitals named as Petitioners in the Petition for Administrative Proceedings in Case Dos. 83-1067 and 83-1068 were members of the Florida Patient's Compensation Fund during the fund year 1980-1981. (exh. 40; P.H.S. V 1) The chart below contains the following information concerning fund year 1980-81: the amount of the total proposed assessment described in the Notice of Assessment (dated March 14, 1983); the amount of the losses experienced by doctors and hospitals, respectively; the amount of the fees originally paid by doctors and hospitals; and the amount of the proposed assessments for doctors and hospitals; 1980-1981 Fund Year - Total Assessment $23,684,511 DOCTORS HOSPITALS Losses $19,086,800 Losses $29,798,500 Fees Paid 4,299,117 Fees Paid 6,015,827 Assessments 4,322,233 Assessments 18,734,918 (P.H.S. V 9) The Department computed the portion of the assessment to be paid by the different classes of health care providers for the 1980-1981 fund year based upon an "indicated rate method." This method is represented by the following formula: The Department started with the actuarially indicated rate for each class of health care provider as described in the October, 1981 Actuarial Report prepared by Tillinghast, Nelson, et al. This is called the "indicated rate by class." The Department then applied the following formula for each class: Indicated Rate by Class x No. of Members in the Class = Total indicated fees by Class Total Indicated Fees by Class divided by total Indicated Fees for ALL Classes = Percentage of Indicated Fee by Class Percentage of Indicated Fee by Class x Total Expected Loss for ALL Classes = Expected Loss by Class (Expected loss is ALL losses for the fund year including claims previously paid, reserves established on claims asserted and IBNR [incurred but not reported].) (P.H.S. V 12) The "indicated rate method" for allocating assessments among the various classes of health care providers was selected by the Department as the method which most fairly reflected the classifications prescribed in Section 768.54(3)(c), Florida Statutes. The record in this proceeding establishes that this method is the most feasible mechanism for fairly reflecting classifications established by statute, and, at the same time, providing immediate funds necessary to meet all claims against the Fund. (P.H.S. V 13) The difference between the results derived by the "indicated rate method" and the amounts reflected in the Notice of Assessment is due to the application of the statutory cap on assessments against physician members, as applied by the Department of Insurance. (P.H.S. V 14) Exhibit #17 shows (a) the calculations utilized by the Department in spreading the assessments for the 1980-81 fund year, (b) the amount each class would have paid under the "indicated rate method" for the fund year 1980-81 and (c) the amount actually described in the 1980-81 Notice of Assessment of the Department of Insurance. The Notices of Assessment issued by the Department of Insurance for fund years 1980-1981 allocated the "excess assessments" (which could not be applied to physician members because the 768.54(3)(c)'s limitation on the amount physicians could be assessed) among the other classes of health care providers based upon their percentage of "expected losses." (P.H.S. V 16) The amounts of the assessments sought by the Fund, and described in the Notices of Assessment, were calculated by the Fund by using the following formula: Total fees paid during the Fund Year + Investment Income attributable to the Fund Year Expenses allocated to that Fund Year Amount paid on claims for that Fund Year Amount reserved for all known claims for that Fund Year. (P.H.S. V 17) The fees ordered by the Department of Insurance and collected by the Fund plus the interest income generated by such fees for fund year 1980-81 are inadequate to cover claims against the Fund for that year. (P.H.S. V 19) Petitioners, for purposes of this proceeding, do not contest: (a) the method by which the Fund establishes reserves; (b) the amount of the reserves established for any individual claim file; or (c) the amount of the total deficit described in the Notices of Assessment dated March 14, 1983 for fund year 1980-1981. Nonetheless, Petitioners do not concede that the Fund needs all of the money described in the Notice of Assessment dated March 14, 1983 at this time. (P.H.S. V 33,34) The record in this cause establishes that as of March 14, 1983, there existed a deficiency in the Fund's account for the 1980-1981 fund year of at least $23,684,511 for the payment of settlements, final judgments and reserves on existing and known claims. Approximately $19,405.00 of this deficit is directly attributable to one judgment - Von Stetina v. Florida Medical Center. This was a malpractice judgment against a hospital which has been affirmed on appeal by the First District Court. An appeal has been filed in the Florida Supreme Court. (exh. nos. 1, 2, 18, 19, 26, 27 and 38) In view of the statutory cap on the amounts that may be assessed against physician members of the Fund, the foregoing dollar amounts for assessments for the 1980-81 fund year, and the manner in which they are proposed to be allocated among the remaining classes of health care providers are appropriate. The original fees for the 1980-1981 fund year were set in June of 1980. The Fund by letter dated April 21, 1980 requested that the Department approve an increase in membership fees for physicians and surgeons in the amount of twenty-five (25) percent and a redefinition of rate classes that would move eighteen (18) percent of the physicians and surgeons from Class 3 to Class 2. The Department published notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly and notified interested parties on its mailing lists that a public hearing was to be held on June 2, 1980. This hearing was held pursuant to 627.351, 768.54, and Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The purpose of the hearing was identified as "to afford the Fund an opportunity to present evidence and agreement in support of its filing and, further, to afford any affected person an opportunity to present evidence and argument relating to the filing." A hearing was in fact held on June 2, 1980. The Fund presented evidence and argument in support of its request for twenty-five (25) percent increase in fees. No parties argued or presented evidence contending that the fees should have been higher. Subsequent to the hearing, the Department notified the Fund by letter dated June 12, 1980 that its request was approved. Acting on the Department's approval, the Fund sent all prospective members of the Fund for the 1980-81 year membership forms. These forms notified each health care provider what the fees for membership for all health care providers would be. In order to join the Fund each health care provider was required to fill out and sign these forms, thereby agreeing to pay the membership fees and any future assessments which might be levied. Both Petitioners and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact are not included in this Recommended Order, they have been specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues involved in this cause, or as not having been supported by evidence of record.
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.
The Issue The issues which developed were: Did Jackson Greene receive the coverage as asserted by the Department of Administration, and What deductions were made from Greene for the coverage, and What deductions were required for the coverage, and Did Greene owe any additional sums for the coverage?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Jackson Greene was employed by the State of Florida, Department of insurance, on October 15, 1983. When he was employed, Greene became eligible for participation in the state's health insurance plan. He applied for coverage on October 17, 1983, filling out and signing the application form, Petitioner Exhibit 1. Mr. Greene indicated he desired Family I Coverage, insuring himself and his wife, Evelyn Greene, who was not a State employee. See Petitioner Exhibit 1. Family I Coverage was provided by the State as indicated by issuance of an insurance card. Although the Greenes never had occasion to make a claim against the insurance, the insurance was in effect from the date of acceptance into the program through the date of this hearing. The State erroneously failed to deduct the correct amount for insurance premiums from Greene's salary. From November 1983 through July 1984 the State should have deducted $48.46 per month. However, the State deducted only $13.28 per month. From August through April 1986, when the error was caught and corrected, the State should have deducted $55.64/month. However, only $15.18 per month was deducted by the State. From November 1953 through July 1984 the State failed to deduct $316.62 ($48.46 - $13.28 X 9 = $316.62). From August 1984 through April 1956 the State failed to deduct $849.66 over 21 months ($55.64 - $15.18 X 21 $849.66) Over the entire term of coverage (30 months) there is a computed total due of $1,166.28 based upon Respondent's Exhibit 2.
Recommendation The State should recover $1,166.28 from Jackson Greene for underpayment of insurance premiums in 60 equal installments and any unpaid portion be deducted from moneys owed Petitioner for unused sick and annual leave if Petitioner leaves State employment. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of January, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3788 The Respondent's Findings of Facts were adopted. The Petitioner's Findings of Facts are not specifically identified; however, both parties agree to the basic facts. The Petitioner's contention is that the state is barred from recovering the unpaid premiums on equitable principles. This legal argument is rejected because Petitioner has suffered no detriment except having to pay higher premiums due to repayment. This detriment is diminished by the extend repayment period recommended. COPIES FURNISHED: Jackson Greene 1303 Ocala Road, Apt. 7 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Gilda Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
