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 are whether proposed and existing Florida Administrative Code rules, both numbered 59G-6.030, are valid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners are 120 hospitals--some not-for-profit, some for-profit, and some governmental--that are licensed under chapter 395, Florida Statutes, provide both inpatient and outpatient services, and participate in the Medicaid program. AHCA is the state agency authorized to make payments for services rendered to Medicaid patients. Before 2013, all Medicaid outpatient services were provided and paid fee-for-service. Under the fee-for-service model, hospitals submit claims to AHCA, and AHCA reimburses the hospitals based on the established rate. For many years, AHCA has set prospective Medicaid fee- for-service reimbursement rates for outpatient hospital services, either semi-annually or annually, based on the most recent complete and accurate cost reports submitted by each hospital; has re-published the Florida Title XIX Hospital Outpatient Reimbursement Plan (Outpatient Plan) that explained how the rates were determined; and has adopted the current Outpatient Plan by reference in rule 59G-6.030. In 2005, the Florida Legislature’s General Appropriations Act (GAA) stated that the funds appropriated for Medicaid outpatient hospital services reflected a cost savings of $16,796,807 “as a result of modifying the reimbursement methodology for outpatient hospital rates.” It instructed AHCA to “implement a recurring methodology in the Title XIX Outpatient Hospital Reimbursement Plan that may include, but is not limited to, the inflation factor, variable cost target, county rate ceiling or county ceiling target rate to achieve the cost savings.” AHCA responded by amending the Outpatient Plan to provide: “Effective July 1, 2005, a recurring rate reduction shall be established until an aggregate total estimated savings of $16,796,807 is achieved each year. This reduction is the Medicaid Trend Adjustment.” The amended Outpatient Plan was then adopted by reference in rule 59G-6.030, effective July 1, 2005. AHCA collaborated with the hospitals to determine how to accomplish the legislatively mandated reduction in a manner that would be fair to all the hospitals. It was decided to take the hospitals’ unaudited cost reports from the most recent complete fiscal year and the number of Medicaid occasions of service from the monthly report of AHCA’s Medicaid fiscal agent that corresponded to the hospitals’ fiscal years, and use an Excel spreadsheet program with a function called Goal Seek to calculate proportionate rate adjustments for each hospital to achieve the legislatively mandated aggregate savings. The resulting rate adjustments were incorporated in the hospital reimbursement rates, effective July 1, 2005. In 2006, there was no further Medicaid Trend Adjustment (MTA) reduction. However, in accordance with the instructions in the 2005 GAA, the 2005 MTA reduction of $16,796,807 was treated as a recurring reduction and was applied again in the 2006 Outpatient Plan, which again stated: “Effective July 1, 2005, a recurring rate reduction shall be established until an aggregate total estimated savings of $16,796,807 is achieved each year. This reduction is the Medicaid Trend Adjustment.” The 2006 Outpatient Plan also stated: “This recurring reduction, called the Medicaid Trend Adjustment, shall be applied proportionally to all rates on an annual basis.” It also came to be known as the first cut or cut 1. It again was applied by taking the hospitals’ most current unaudited cost reports and the corresponding occasions of service from the appropriate monthly report of the fiscal agent, and using the Excel spreadsheets and the Goal Seek function to calculate rate adjustments for each hospital. The cut 1 rate adjustments were incorporated in the hospital reimbursement rates, effective July 1, 2006. In 2007, the GAA stated that the funds appropriated for Medicaid outpatient hospital services were reduced by $17,211,796 “as a result of modifying the reimbursement for outpatient hospital rates, effective July 1, 2008.” This has been referred to as the second cut or cut 2. It instructed AHCA to “implement a recurring methodology in the Title XIX Outpatient Hospital Reimbursement Plan to achieve this reduction.” The 2008 Outpatient Plan again applied the first cut as a recurring reduction and stated that it was to be “applied proportionally to all rates on an annual basis.” It then made the second cut, which was to be “applied to achieve a recurring annual reduction of $17,211,796.” These cuts were again applied by taking the hospitals’ most current unaudited cost reports and the corresponding occasions of service from the appropriate monthly report of the fiscal agent, and using the Excel spreadsheets and the Goal Seek function to calculate rate adjustments for each hospital. The resulting rate adjustments were incorporated in the hospital reimbursement rates, effective July 1, 2008. This process was repeated in subsequent years. The third cut (cut 3) was in 2008; it was a $36,403,451 reduction. The fourth cut (cut 4) was in 2009, during a special session; it was a $19,384,437 reduction; however, per the GAA that made the fourth cut, it was not applied to the rates of certain children’s specialty hospitals, which were excluded from the reduction. In addition, using language similar to what AHCA had been using in the Outpatient Plans, the 2009 GAA stated: “The agency shall reduce individual hospital rates proportionately until the required savings are achieved.” The Legislature enacted cut 5 and cut 6 in 2009 and 2010. However, the GAAs stated that AHCA should not take these cuts if the unit costs before the cuts were equal to or less than the unit costs used in establishing the budget. AHCA determined that cuts 5 and 6 should not be taken. However, cuts 1 through 4 continued to be applied as recurring reductions, and rates were adjusted for cuts 1 through 4 in 2009 and 2010 in the same manner as before. In 2011, the GAA enacted cut 7; it was for $99,045,233 and was added to the previous cuts for all but certain children’s specialty and rural hospitals, which were excluded from the additional reduction. In setting the individual hospitals’ reimbursement rates, AHCA first applied cut 7 in the same manner as cuts 1 through 4. The result was a 16.5 percent rate adjustment for cut 7, which was much higher than for previous cuts. Some of the hospitals pointed this out to AHCA and to the Legislature and its staff. There was lots of discussion, and it was determined that the rate adjustment from cut 7 would be more like what the Legislature was expecting (about 12 percent), if budgeted occasions of service were used, instead of the number from the fiscal agent’s monthly report that corresponded to the most recent cost reports. AHCA agreed to change to budgeted fee-for- service occasions of service for cut 7, with the concurrence of the hospitals and the Legislature and its staff. The year 2011 was also the year the Legislature instituted what became known as the “unit cost cap.” In that year, the Legislature amended section 409.908, Florida Statutes, to provide: “The agency shall establish rates at a level that ensures no increase in statewide expenditures resulting from a change in unit costs effective July 1, 2011. Reimbursement rates shall be as provided in the General Appropriations Act.” § 409.908(23)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011). This part of the statute has not changed. The GAA that year elaborated: In establishing rates through the normal process, prior to including this reduction [cut 7], if the unit cost is equal to or less than the unit cost used in establishing the budget, then no additional reduction in rates is necessary. In establishing rates through the normal process, if the unit cost is greater than the unit cost used in establishing the budget, then rates shall be reduced by an amount required to achieve this reduction, but shall not be reduced below the unit cost used in establishing the budget. “Unit cost” was not defined by statute or GAA. To calculate what it was in 2011, AHCA divided the total dollar amount of Medicaid payments made to hospitals by AHCA by the number of Medicaid occasions of service for all hospitals. The result was $141.51. Since 2011, AHCA has applied the unit cost cap with reference to the 2011 unit cost of $141.51. Since then, AHCA has compared the 2011 unit cost to the current cost, calculated by dividing the total dollar amount of Medicaid payments made to all hospitals by AHCA by the number of Medicaid occasions of service for all hospitals, except in children’s and rural hospitals, to determine whether the unit cost cap would require a further rate reduction, after applying the MTA cuts. Using this comparison, the unit cost cap never has been exceeded, and no further rate adjustments ever have been required. It is not clear why AHCA excluded Medicaid occasions of service for children’s and rural hospitals from the unit cost calculations made after 2011. It could have been because those hospitals were excluded from cut 7 and cut 8. Cut 8 was enacted in 2012; it was for $49,078,485 and was added to the previous cuts for all but certain children’s specialty and rural hospitals, which were excluded from the additional reduction. In 2012, the Legislature specified in the GAA that budgeted occasions of service should be used in calculating the MTA reduction for inpatient hospitals. AHCA always treated inpatient and outpatient MTAs the same, and it viewed the specific legislative direction for the inpatient MTA as guidance and indicative of legislative intent that it should continue to use budgeted occasions of service for the outpatient cut 7 and should also use them for the outpatient cut 8. Again, the hospitals did not object since the result was a higher reimbursement rate. In 2014, the Florida Medicaid program began to transition Medicaid recipients from a fee-for-service model to a managed care model. Under the managed care model, AHCA pays a managed care organization (MCO) a capitation rate per patient. The MCOs negotiate contracts with hospitals to provide outpatient care at an agreed reimbursement rate per occasion of service. Since August 2014, the majority of Medicaid recipients has been receiving services through MCOs, rather than through fee-for-service. Currently, about 75 to 80 percent of Medicaid outpatient hospital occasions of service are provided through managed care In recognition of the shift to MCOs, the Legislature began to divide the Medicaid outpatient hospital reimbursement appropriation in the GAA between what AHCA reimburses directly to hospitals under the fee-for-service model and what it pays MCOs to provide those services under the MCO delivery system. This allocation of the budgets between fee-for-service and managed care necessarily accomplished a corresponding division of the recurring MTA reductions between the two delivery systems. The Legislature did not enact any statutes or GAAs requiring AHCA to change how it applies MTA reductions to determine fee-for-service outpatient reimbursement rate adjustments, or make any other changes in response to the transition to MCOs. There were no additional MTA reductions in 2015. The 2015 Outpatient Plan, which is incorporated in existing rule 59G- 6.030, applied the previous cuts as recurring reductions. The evidence was confusing as to whether cuts 7 and 8 were applied using the occasions of service in the fiscal agent’s monthly report corresponding to the hospitals’ most current unaudited cost reports, or using budgeted occasions of service. If the former, the numbers did not yet reflect much of the shift to the managed care model because of a time lag in producing cost reports, and the evidence suggested that the numbers were approximately the same as the budgeted occasions of service used previously. Whichever numbers were used, the resulting rate adjustments were incorporated in the hospitals’ reimbursement rates, effective July 1, 2015. Leading up to the 2016 legislative session, there was a legislative proposal to determine prospective Medicaid outpatient reimbursement rates using a completely new method called Enhanced Ambulatory Patient Groups (EAPGs). EAPGs would eliminate the need to depend on hospital cost reports and complicated calculations to determine the effects of MTA reductions on prospective hospital outpatient reimbursement rates, effective July 1, following the end of the legislative session each year. Hospitals, including some if not all of the Petitioners, asked the Legislature not to proceed with the proposed EAPG legislation until they had an opportunity to study it and provide input, and EAPGs were not enacted in 2016. However, section 409.905(6)(b) was amended, effective July 1, 2017, to require the switch to EAPGs. See note to § 409.905, Fla. Stat.; and ch. 2016-65, § 9, Laws of Fla. (2016). When it became apparent that EAPGs would not be in use for prospective reimbursement rates for fiscal year 2016/2017, AHCA basically repeated the 2015/2016 process, but adjusted the occasions of service used for calculating the hospitals’ rate reductions for cuts 7 and 8 by adding 14,000 occasions of service. At the end of July, AHCA published new rates effective July 1, 2016. When the new rates were published, they were challenged by some of the Petitioners under section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Citing section 409.908(1)(f)1., AHCA took the position that there was no jurisdiction and dismissed the petitions. That decision is on appeal to the First District Court of Appeal. The Petitioners also challenged the methodology used to calculate the new prospective reimbursement rates as a rule that was not adopted as required, and challenged the validity of existing rule 59G-6.030, which incorporated the 2015 Outpatient Plan by reference. These challenges became DOAH cases 16-6398RX through 16-6414RX. In response to DOAH cases 16-6398RX through 16-6414RX, AHCA adopted the 2016 Outpatient Plan by reference in proposed rule 59G-6.030. The 2016 Outpatient Plan provides more detail than the 2015 version. AHCA’s position is that the additional detail was provided to clarify the 2015 version. However, it changed the occasions of service used for calculating the hospitals’ rate reductions for cuts 7 and 8, as indicated in Finding 22, as well as some other substantive changes. The 2015 Outpatient Plan addressed the unit cost cap by stating: “Effective July 1, 2011, AHCA shall establish rates at a level that ensures no increase in statewide expenditures resulting from a change in unit costs.” The 2016 Outpatient Plan elaborates and specifies the calculation AHCA has been using, as stated in Finding 14. The 2015 Outpatient Plan provided that an individual hospital’s prospective reimbursement rate may be adjusted under certain circumstances, such as when AHCA makes an error in the calculation of the hospital’s unaudited rate. It also stated: “Any rate adjustment or denial of a rate adjustment by AHCA may be appealed by the provider in accordance with Rule 28-106, F.A.C., and section 120.57(1), F.S.” The 2016 Outpatient Plan deleted the appeal rights language from the existing rule. The effect of the existing and proposed rules on the Petitioners through their effect on managed care contract rates is debatable. Those rates do not have to be the same as the fee- for-service outpatient reimbursement rates, although they are influenced by the fee-for-service rates, and it is not uncommon for them to be stated as a percentage of the fee-for-service rates. By law, managed care contract rates cannot exceed 120 percent of the fee-for-service rates unless the MCO gets permission from AHCA, as provided in section 409.975(6). Currently, rates paid by MCOs for Medicaid hospital outpatient services average about 105 percent of the fee-for-service reimbursement rates. AHCA has indicated that it would not expect or like to see the contract rates much higher than that. It is not clear whether that still is AHCA’s position. If higher rates were negotiated, the impact of fee-for-services rate adjustments on managed care rates could be reduced or even eliminated. The effect of the existing and proposed rules on the Petitioners through their effect on how fee-for-service reimbursement rates are calculated is not disputed. With the transition to managed care, the effect is greater and clearly substantial. The recurring MTA reductions enacted by the Legislature through 2014, which total $224,015,229 (after taking into account $10,656,238 that was reinstated, and $4,068,064 that was added in consideration of trauma centers), are being spread over fewer fee-for-service occasions of service, especially for cuts 7 and 8, which significantly lowers the fee-for-service outpatient reimbursement rates calculated under the proposed rule. The Petitioners’ objections to the validity of the proposed and existing rules can be summarized as follows: a lack of legislative authority for recurring (i.e., cumulative) MTA reductions; a failure to adopt a fixed methodology to calculate individual hospital outpatient reimbursement rate adjustments resulting from MTA reductions; specifically, a failure to derive the number of fee-for-service occasions of service used in calculating individual hospital outpatient reimbursement rate adjustments in the same manner every year; conversely, a failure to increase the occasions of service used to calculate individual hospital outpatient reimbursement rate adjustments resulting from cuts 1 through 4; a failure of the unit cost cap in the existing rule to specify how it is applied; a failure of the unit cost cap in the proposed rule to compare the 2011 unit cost to the current cost, calculated by dividing the total dollar amount of Medicaid payments made to all hospitals by AHCA by the number of Medicaid occasions of service for all hospitals, including in children’s and rural hospitals; and proposed rule’s deletion of the language in the existing rule stating that a rate adjustment or denial can be appealed in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106 and section 120.57.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner overpaid Respondent Medicaid funds, for which Section 409.913(10), Florida Statutes (2002), authorizes Petitioner to seek repayment from Respondent.
Findings Of Fact During 1998, Respondent was an authorized Medicaid provider, pursuant to Medicaid provider number 105425200, and was a party to a valid Medicaid Provider Agreement with Petitioner. Respondent filed claims with Petitioner for payment, under the Medicaid program, for the goods and services that are the subject of the audit described below, and Petitioner paid Respondent for these claims. The audit period in this case is 1998. During 1998, Respondent submitted to Petitioner 36,257 claims for nearly 5.5 million units of over one thousand types of drugs. These claims totaled $3,075,449.88, which Petitioner paid Respondent. On June 2, 1999, Petitioner sent a letter to Respondent informing it of a review of its pharmacy claims for 1998. The letter requests documentation of all purchases of 12 named drugs for 1998 and documentation of all credits for these drugs during the same period. The letter states that acceptable documentation includes itemized wholesaler sales history reports, itemized manufacturer sales history reports, itemized invoices, and credit return receipts. By letter dated June 5, 1999, Respondent provided the requested information. By letter dated June 23, 2000, Petitioner advised Respondent that it had examined the paid Medicaid claims for 1998 and the acquisition documentation that Respondent had provided in June 1999. The letter states: "You have failed to provide adequate documentation to the effect that the available quantity of certain drugs of given strength was as great as the quantity of those drugs billed to and reimbursed by Medicaid.” Thus, Petitioner made a "provisional" determination that it had overpaid Respondent $1,092,205.32. The letter invites Respondent to provide additional information to reduce the overpayment determination. The June 23 letter contains an Overpayment Attachment that lists ten of the twelve drugs for which Petitioner had sought documentation in its earlier letter. For each of these ten drugs, the Overpayment Attachment lists the generic code, number of units for which Medicaid paid, the total amount of Medicaid payments, the total units documented by Respondent to have been available during the relevant period, and the number of units for which Respondent provided no availability documentation. The Overpayment Attachment also calculates the amount of Medicaid payments attributable to the unavailable units and the total overpayment, which is $1,092,205.32. The overpayment calculations described in the preceding paragraph assume that all available units of the audited drugs were sold to Medicaid patients. The effect of this improbable scenario reduces the amount of the overpayment. The overpayment calculations attempt no extrapolation of overpayments on the over 10,000 other drugs for which Respondent received Medicaid payments during 1998. The effect of limiting the overpayment calculation to the ten listed drugs reduces the amount of the overpayment. However, the ten listed drugs are the drugs that generated the most Medicaid payments to Respondent and account for over one-third of the total Medicaid payments during the relevant period. Respondent provided additional information to Petitioner on August 30 and November 3, 2000. However, after examining the information, Petitioner advised Respondent, by letter dated April 8, 2002, that its final determination was that Respondent owed $1,096,489.77 due to its receipt of Medicaid overpayments. The overpayment increased by over $4000 due to the determination that Respondent's records documented 1000 fewer available units of two dosages of Risperdone than Petitioner had previously determined.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order directing Respondent to pay Petitioner $1,096,489.77, plus interest, to repay overpayments that it received from the Medicaid program for the sale of drugs in 1998. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 3rd day of November, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Grant P. Dearborn Assistant General Counsel Building 3, Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5407 Jose M. Herrera Jose M. Herrera, P.A. 1401 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Suite 200 Coral Gables, Florida 33134
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner must reimburse Respondent for payments totaling $1,140,763.88 that Petitioner received from the Medicaid Program in compensation for the provision of prescription drugs between late-August and November of 1998. Respondent contends that Petitioner is not entitled to retain the payments in question because Petitioner allegedly has failed to demonstrate that it had available during the pertinent period a sufficient quantity of the prescription drugs in question.
Findings Of Fact The parties' Joint Stipulation of Facts and the evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Parties The Agency for Health Care Administration (the “Agency”) is responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program. As one of its duties, the Agency must recover "overpayments . . . as appropriate," the term "overpayment" being statutorily defined to mean "any amount that is not authorized to be paid by the Medicaid program whether paid as a result of inaccurate or improper cost reporting, improper claiming, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse, or mistake." See Section 409.913(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Palm Beach Pharmacy, Inc. (“PBPI”), d/b/a Eddie’s Drug (“Eddie’s”) was, at all times material hereto, a duly contracted Medicaid provider, having entered into a Medicaid Provider Agreement with the Agency and been assigned a Medicaid Provider Number: 106343000. Eddie’s is a Florida licensed pharmacy.1 As an enrolled Medicaid provider, Eddie’s is authorized to dispense drugs and supplies to Medicaid recipients. In return, Eddie’s has agreed to comply with all governing statutes, rules, and policies, including those policies set forth in the Florida Medicaid Prescribed Drug Services Coverage, Limitations and Reimbursement Handbook (the “Handbook”). The Agency, which prepared the Handbook and furnishes it to Medicaid providers, has incorporated the Handbook by reference into Rule 59G-4.250(2), Florida Administrative Code. PBPI, which owned and operated a number of pharmacies (including Eddie’s), maintained its corporate headquarters in West Palm Beach, Florida. Eddie’s was located in Miami, Florida. On July 1, 1998, PBPI acquired a drug store known as Jay’s Drugs (“Jay’s”). Jay’s was located in Miami, Florida, across the street from Eddie’s. Thus, before both stores came under common ownership, they had been competitors. This case arises out of the Agency's attempt to recover alleged overpayments on Medicaid claims for which Eddie’s was paid several years ago. The "audit period" that is the subject of the Agency's recoupment effort is April 1, 1998 to July 31, 1999, although the actual period in controversy is much shorter. From July 1, 1998, until the end of the audit period, PBPI owned and operated both Eddie’s and Jay’s. The Underlying Facts The transactions at the heart of this case occurred between late-August and November of 1998, during which period (the “Focal Period”) Medicaid reimbursed Eddie’s more than $1 million for prescription drugs including Neupogen and Epogen/Procrit (collectively, the “Drugs”). The Drugs are used to treat AIDS patients and persons infected with HIV. Prior to the Focal Period, Eddie’s had not dispensed $1 million worth of the Drugs——or any figure approaching that amount——in three or four months’ time. The reason for the dramatic spike in Eddie’s business is that Eddie’s was dispensing the Drugs to customers of Jay’s pursuant to an arrangement designed to manipulate PBPI’s contractual obligations to the former owner of Jay’s under the purchase and sale agreement by which PBPI had acquired Jay’s. Essentially, the arrangement was this. Jay’s was dispensing the Drugs to a large number (approximately 150) of Medicaid beneficiaries who were receiving treatment at a nearby clinic. Because the Drugs were administered to the patients via intravenous infusion, the clinic typically obtained the Drugs from Jay’s in bulk. To fill these prescriptions, Jay’s ordered the Drugs from a wholesale supplier, which usually delivered the Drugs to Jay’s the next day. At some point before the Focal Period, arrangements were made to have the clinic present its prescriptions for the Drugs to Eddie’s rather than Jay’s.2 The evidence does not show, exactly, how this was accomplished, but whatever the means, the clinic abruptly began bringing prescriptions for the Drugs to Eddie’s.3 This diversion of Jay’s’ business to Eddie’s was intended to deprive Jay’s of Medicaid reimbursements to which Jay’s’ former owner had access as a source of funds for paying down a note that PBPI had given for the purchase of Jay’s. By having Eddie’s dispense the Drugs and submit the Medicaid claims, Medicaid money flowed into Eddie’s’ bank account (rather than Jay’s’ bank account) and hence was not immediately available to the former owner of Jay’s to reduce PBPI’s debt. During the Focal Period, Eddie’s did not purchase the Drugs from a wholesaler but instead acquired them from Jay’s. The process by which this was accomplished involved a pharmacy technician named Wright, who was employed at Eddie’s, and a pharmacist named Shafor, who worked at Jay’s. Wright (at Eddie’s) accepted the prescriptions for the Drugs as the clinic brought them in Then, she called Shafor (at Jay’s) and told him the quantities needed to fill the prescriptions. Shafor ordered the Drugs from a wholesaler, which delivered them in bulk to Jay’s, usually the next day. Upon receiving the Drugs, Shafor personally delivered them to Wright, who, recall, was across the street at Eddie’s. Wright labeled and dispensed the Drugs. Eddie’s submitted a claim for the Drugs to Medicaid, and Medicaid paid Eddie’s. PBPI maintained separate accounting ledgers for Eddie’s and Jay’s, respectively. The company’s accountants recorded the subject transactions in these ledgers so that Jay’s——not Eddie’s——would “recognize” the sales of the Drugs. In a nutshell, this was done through “inter-company” transfers whereby all of the money that Eddie’s received from Medicaid for the Drugs was moved, on the books, into an account of Jay’s. In this way, any profit from the sales of the Drugs (the difference between the wholesale cost of the Drugs and the Medicaid reimbursement therefor, less overhead) was realized on Jay’s’ books.4 The Medicaid payments to Eddie’s that the Agency seeks to recoup were included in four remittance vouchers dated September 2, 1998; September 30, 1998; October 28, 1998; and November 25, 1998, respectively. The September 2 payment to Eddie’s totaled $287,205.52. Of this amount, $276,033.23 reimbursed Eddie’s for dispensing the Drugs. Eddie’s’ accounting ledger reflects that, as of September 30, 1998, the sum of $276,033.23 had been transferred from an account of Eddie’s to an account of Jay’s. The September 30 payment to Eddie’s totaled $439,175.77, of which $432,700.36 was paid in consideration of the Drugs. The October 28 Medicaid payment was $431,753.82, of which total the Drugs accounted for $424,202.76. Eddie’s’ accounting ledger reflects that, as of October 31, 1998, the sum of $870,929.59 (439,175.77 + 431,753.82) had been transferred from an account of Eddie’s to an account of Jay’s. The November 25 payment to Eddie’s totaled $407,088.00. Of this amount, $393,063.00 reimbursed Eddie’s for dispensing the Drugs. Eddie’s’ accounting ledger reflects that, as of November 30, 1998, the sum of $407,088.00 had been transferred from an account of Eddie’s to an account of Jay’s. The Agency’s Allegations On October 31, 2000, the Agency issued its Final Agency Audit Report (“Audit”) in which Eddie’s was alleged to have received $1,143,612.68 in overpayments relating to the Drugs. In the Audit, the Agency spelled out its theory of the case; indeed, the Audit is the only document in the record that does so. The Agency cited several statutory provisions. First, Section 409.913(7)(e), Florida Statutes, was referenced. This section states: When presenting a claim for payment under the Medicaid program, a provider has an affirmative duty to supervise the provision of, and be responsible for, goods and services claimed to have been provided, to supervise and be responsible for preparation and submission of the claim, and to present a claim that is true and accurate and that is for goods and services that: * * * (e) Are provided in accord with applicable provisions of all Medicaid rules, regulations, handbooks, and policies and in accordance with federal, state, and local law. Section 409.913(7)(e), Florida Statutes. The Agency did not allege (or prove), however, that Eddie’s had violated Section 409.913(7)(e), Florida Statutes.5 Put another way, the Agency did not plead or prove lack of supervision, submission of a false claim, or that the Drugs were not provided in accordance with applicable law. Next, the Agency cited Section 409.913(8), Florida Statutes, which provides: A Medicaid provider shall retain medical, professional, financial, and business records pertaining to services and goods furnished to a Medicaid recipient and billed to Medicaid for a period of 5 years after the date of furnishing such services or goods. The agency may investigate, review, or analyze such records, which must be made available during normal business hours. However, 24-hour notice must be provided if patient treatment would be disrupted. The provider is responsible for furnishing to the agency, and keeping the agency informed of the location of, the provider's Medicaid- related records. The authority of the agency to obtain Medicaid-related records from a provider is neither curtailed nor limited during a period of litigation between the agency and the provider. The Agency further alleged, as fact, that Eddie’s had failed, upon request, “to submit invoices from [its] suppliers to substantiate the availability of drugs that [were] billed to Medicaid” and thus had not “fully substantiated such availability.” The Agency, however, did not invoke any of the available remedial provisions as authority to impose a sanction for this alleged failure to turn over Medicaid-related records. See, e.g., Sections 409.913(14)(b), (c), and (d), Florida Statutes. The Agency cited Section 409.913(10), Florida Statutes, which authorizes the Agency to “require repayment for inappropriate, medically unnecessary, or excessive goods or services from the person furnishing them, the person under whose supervision they were furnished, or the person causing them to be furnished.” There was no allegation (or proof), however, that the Drugs which Eddie’s had purported to dispense (i.e. the Drugs for which it had submitted Medicaid claims) were “inappropriate, medically unnecessary, or excessive.” Thus, Eddie’s was not alleged (or shown) to have violated Section 409.913(10), Florida Statutes. Finally, the Agency relied upon Section 409.913(14)(n), Florida Statutes, which is the basis of the Agency’s legal theory. This section provides: The agency may seek any remedy provided by law, including, but not limited to, the remedies provided in subsections (12) and (15) and s. 812.035, if: * * * (n) The provider fails to demonstrate that it had available during a specific audit or review period sufficient quantities of goods, or sufficient time in the case of services, to support the provider's billings to the Medicaid program[.] The Agency contended, additionally, that “[b]illing Medicaid for drugs that have not been demonstrated as available for dispensing is a violation of the Medicaid laws and regulations and has resulted in the finding that [Eddie’s] ha[s] been overpaid by the Medicaid program.” (Emphasis added). The Agency explained, “Medicaid payments that have been substantiated by documented inventory are assumed to be valid; and payments in excess of that amount are regarded to be invalid.” Thus, the Agency’s theory of recovery is that Eddie’s must forfeit “overpayments” arising from its failure to demonstrate the availability, in inventory, of a sufficient quantity of the Drugs for which claims were submitted, as required by Section 409.913(14)(n), Florida Statutes. After the Audit was issued, the Agency accepted a handwritten note regarding the transfer of a small quantity of Drugs from Jay’s to Eddie’s as sufficient to demonstrate the availability of such amount. This resulted in a slight reduction of the amount of the alleged overpayment, to $1,140,763.88. The Separate Audit of Jay’s The Agency conducted a separate audit of Jay’s, concerning which some evidence was introduced at hearing. Without getting into unnecessary detail, the audit of Jay’s revealed that Jay’s had purchased, during and around the Focal Period, a quantity of the Drugs that exceeded the number of units that Jay’s had billed to Medicaid. It was Eddie’s theory that this “excess inventory” of Jay’s matched, more or less, the alleged inventory shortfall at Eddie’s, thereby corroborating the testimony concerning the transfer of these Drugs from Jay’s to Eddie’s for dispensation. At hearing, the parties sharply disputed whether, in fact, Jay’s had transferred the Drugs to Eddie’s. The Agency, of course, maintained that such transfers were not properly documented; Eddie’s argued that the documents and other evidence, including testimony about the transactions in question, adequately demonstrated that the transfers had, in fact, occurred. There was no dispute, however, that if it were found that such transfers had occurred, and if, further, the documents (and other evidence) pertaining to the inventory of Jay’s were accepted as proof of the quantities of Drugs so transferred, then all but $176,078.30 worth of the Drugs could be accounted for. Thus, as counsel for Eddie’s conceded at hearing, the Agency is entitled to recoup some sum of money. The question is whether that sum is $1,140,763.88 or $176,078.30. Ultimate Factual Determination Based on all of the evidence in the record, including the deposition testimony received through the parties’ joint stipulation, it is determined that, more likely than not, Eddie’s had available during the Focal Period a sufficient quantity of the Drugs to support all but $176,078.30 worth of the claims in dispute.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency enter a final order requiring Eddie’s to repay the Agency the principal amount of $176,078.30. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 12th day of March, 2002.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner received a Medicaid overpayment for claims paid during the audit period, August 1, 1997, through August 25, 1999, and if so, what is the amount that Petitioner is obligated to reimburse to Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program. One of its duties is to recover Medicaid overpayments from physicians providing care to Medicaid recipients. Petitioner is a licensed psychiatrist and an authorized Medicaid provider. His Medicaid provider number is No. 048191200. Chapter Three of the Limitations Handbook describes the procedure codes for reimbursable Medicaid services that physicians may use in billing for services to eligible recipients. The procedure codes are Health Care Financing Administration Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS), Levels 1-3. The procedure codes are based on the Physician's Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) book, published by the American Medical Association. The CPT book, includes HCPCS descriptive terms, numeric identifying codes, and modifiers for reporting services and procedures. The Limitations Handbook further provides that Medicaid reimburses physicians using specific CPT codes. The CPT codes are listed on Medicaid's physician fee schedule. The CPT book includes a section entitled Evaluation and Management (E/M) Services Guidelines. The E/M section classifies medical services into broad categories such as office visits, hospital visits, and consultations. The categories may have subcategories such as two types of office visits (new patient and established patient) and two types of hospital visits (initial and subsequent). The subcategories of E/M services are further classified into levels of E/M services that are identified by specific CPT codes. The classification is important because the nature of a physician's work varies by type of service, place of service, and the patient's status. According to the CPT book, the descriptors for the levels of E/M services recognize seven components, six of which are used in defining the levels of E/M services. They are history, examination, medical decision making, counseling, coordination of care, nature of presenting problem, and time. The most important components in selecting the appropriate level of E/M services are history, examination, and medical decision making. However, since 1992, the CPT book has included time as an explicit factor in selecting the most appropriate level of E/M services. At all times relevant here, Petitioner provided services to Medicaid patients pursuant to a valid Medicaid provider agreement. Therefore, Petitioner was subject to all statutes, rules and policy guidelines that govern Medicaid providers. The Medicaid provider agreement clearly gives a Medicaid provider the responsibility to maintain medical records sufficient to justify and disclose the extent of the goods and services rendered and billings made pursuant to Medicaid policy. This case involves Respondent's Medicaid audit of claims paid to Petitioner for Medicaid psychiatric services during the audit period August 1, 1997, through August 25, 1999 (the audit period). Petitioner provided these services to his Medicaid patients, which constituted approximately 85 to 90 percent of his practice, at his office and at hospitals in the Jacksonville, Florida, area. During the audit period, Petitioner billed Medicaid for services furnished under the following CPT codes and E/M levels of service: (a) 99215, office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient; (b) 99223, initial hospital care per day for the evaluation and management of a patient; (c) 99232, subsequent hospital care per day for the evaluation and management of a patient; (d) 99233, subsequent hospital care per day for the evaluation and management of a patient; (e) 99238, hospital discharge day management; (f) 99254, initial inpatient consultation for a new or established patient; and (g) 90862, other psychiatric service or procedures, pharmacologic management. Except for CPT code 90862, the E/M levels of services billed by Petitioner require either two or all three of the key components as to history, examination, and medical decision- making. The CPT book assigns a typical amount of time that physicians spend with patients for each level of E/M service. The CPT book contains specific psychiatric CPT codes. CPT codes 90804-90815 relate to services provided in the office or other outpatient facility and involve one of two types of psychotherapy. CPT codes 90816-90829 relate to inpatient hospital, partial hospital, or residential care facility involving different types of psychotherapy. CPT codes 90862- 90899 relate to other psychiatric services or procedures. CPT code 90862 specifically includes pharmacologic or medication management; including prescription, use, and review of medication with no more than minimal medical psychotherapy. CPT code 90862 is the only psychiatric procedure code that Petitioner used in billing for the psychiatric services he provided. CPT code 90862 does not have specific requirements as to history, examination, and medical decision-making or a specified amount of time. Most of Petitioner's hospital patients were admitted to the hospital for psychiatric services through the emergency room. As part of the admission process, Petitioner performed psychiatric and physical examinations. However, testimony at hearing that Petitioner generally performed the psychiatric evaluations and the physical examinations on separate days is not persuasive. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that the hospital physical examinations were conducted as part of the routine admission process and appropriately included in claims for the patients' initial hospital care. Some of Petitioner's hospital patients had complicated conditions. Some patients required crisis intervention and/or lacked the ability to perform activities of daily living. The initial hospital care of new hospital patients required Petitioner to take an extensive medical and psychiatric history. Petitioner attended his hospital patients on a daily basis. However, there is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner routinely spent 20-25 minutes with his hospital patients for each subsequent daily visit until the day of discharge. Petitioner used a team approach when attending his hospital patients. On weekdays, the team consisted of Petitioner, a social worker, a music therapist, and the floor nurses. On weekends, Petitioner generally made his rounds with the floor nurses. Petitioner's use of the team approach to treat hospital patients did not change the level of service he provided in managing their medication. Petitioner did not document the time he spent with patients during hospital visits. However, his notations as to each of these visits indicate that, excluding admissions and discharges, the hospital visits routinely involved medication management. Petitioner's testimony that his treatment during subsequent hospital visits involved more than mere medication management is not persuasive. Petitioner also failed to document the time he spent with patients that he treated at his office. He did not present his appointment books as evidence to show the beginning and ending time of the appointments. Petitioner's notes regarding each office visit reflect a good bit of thought. However, without any notation as to time, the office progress notes are insufficient to determine whether Petitioner provided a level of service higher than medication management for established patients. Petitioner and his office manager agreed in advance that, unless Petitioner specified otherwise, every office visit for an established patient would be billed as if it required two of the following: a comprehensive history; a comprehensive examination; and a medical decision making of high complexity. With no documented time for each appointment, Petitioner's records do not reflect that he provided a level of service higher than medication management for the office visits of established patients. Petitioner's testimony to the contrary is not persuasive. Petitioner treated some patients at their place of residence in an adult congregate living facility (ACLF). Respondent does not pay for psychiatric services in such facilities. Instead of entirely denying the claims for ACLF patients, Respondent gave Petitioner credit for providing a lower level of service in a custodial care facility. Sometime in 1999, Respondent made a decision to audit Petitioner's paid claims for the period of time at issue here. After making that decision, Respondent randomly selected the names of 30 Medicaid patients that Petitioner had treated. The 30 patients had 282 paid claims that were included in the "cluster sample." Thereafter, Respondent's staff visited Petitioner's office, leaving a Medicaid provider questionnaire and the list of the 30 randomly selected patients. Respondent's staff requested copies of all medical records for the 30 patients for the audit period. Petitioner completed the Medicaid questionnaire and sent it to Respondent, together with all available medical records for the 30 patients. The medical records included Petitioner's progress notes for office visits. Petitioner did not send Respondent all of the relevant hospital records for inpatient visits. The original hospital records belonged to the hospitals where Petitioner provided inpatient services. Petitioner had not maintained copies of all of the hospital records even though Medicaid policy required him to keep records of all services for which he made Medicaid claims. When Respondent received Petitioner's records, one of Respondent's registered nurses, Claire Balbo, reviewed the records to determine whether Petitioner had provided documentation to support each paid claim. Ms. Balbo made handwritten notes on the records of claims that were not supported by documentation. Ms. Balbo reviewed the documentation in the records between February 10, 2000, and March 7, 2000. Next, one of Respondent's investigators, Art Williams, reviewed the records. Mr. Williams made his review on or about January 23, 2001. In some instances, Mr. Williams changed some of Petitioner's CPT codes from an inappropriate hospital inpatient or office visit procedure code to a psychiatric procedure code with a lower reimbursement rate. Additionally, Mr. Williams noted Petitioner's visits in ACLF's that, according to Medicaid policy, were not reimbursable. Finally, Mr. Williams noted that Petitioner occasionally made several claims on one line of the claim form contrary to Medicaid policy. Mr. Williams made these changes to the CPT codes based on applicable Medicaid policy. His review of the audit documents and patient records did not involve a determination as medical necessity or the appropriate level of service. A peer reviewer makes determinations as to medical necessity and the appropriate level of service for each paid claim in the random sample of 30 patients. Respondent then sent the records to Dr. Melody Agbunag, a psychiatrist who conducted a peer review of Petitioner's records. Dr. Agbunag's primary function was to determine whether the services that Petitioner provided were medically necessary and, if so, what the appropriate level of service was for each paid claim. Dr. Agbunag conducted the peer review between June 8, 2001, and August 29, 2001. She agreed with Respondent's staff regarding the adjustments to the procedure codes that corresponded with the level of service reflected in the medical records. When Dr. Agbunag returned the records to Respondent, Ms. Balbo calculated the monetary difference between the amount that Medicaid paid Petitioner for each claim and the amount that Medicaid should have paid based on Dr. Agbunag's review. The difference indicated that Respondent had overpaid Petitioner for claims that in whole or in part were not covered by Medicaid. Respondent sent Petitioner a Preliminary Agency Audit Report (PAAR) dated December 27, 2001. The PAAR stated that Petitioner had been overpaid $54,595.14. The PAAR stated that Petitioner could furnish additional information or documentation that might serve to reduce the overpayment. Petitioner responded to the PAAR in a letter dated February 28, 2001. According to the letter, Petitioner challenged the preliminary determinations in the PAAR and advised that he was waiting on additional patient records from a certain hospital. In a letter dated June 30, 2002, Petitioner advised Respondent that he generally spends 15-20 minutes with his hospital inpatients. The letter does not refer to any additional hospital records. Petitioner's office manager sent Respondent a letter dated August 1, 2002. The letter discusses every service that Petitioner provided to the 30 patients during the audit period. Some of these services were not included in the random "cluster sample" because Medicaid had not paid for them during the audit period. According to the August 1, 2002, letter, Petitioner's office manager attached some of the patient records that Petitioner had not previously provided to Respondent. The additional documentation related to multiple claims involving several of Petitioner's hospital and office patients. Sometime after receiving the additional documentation, Dr. Agbunag conducted another peer review. She did not change her prior determination regarding the level of service as to any paid claim. In 2003, Vicki Remick, Respondent's investigator, reviewed the audit, the patient records, and all correspondence. Her review included, but was not limited to, the determination of the appropriate CPT code and amount of reimbursement, taking into consideration Medicaid policy and Dr. Agbunag's findings regarding medical necessity and the level of care for each paid claim. On or about October 1, 2003, Respondent issued the Final Agency Audit Report (FAAR). The FAAR informed Petitioner that he had been overpaid $39,055.34 for Medicaid claims that, in whole or in part, were not covered by Medicaid. The FAAR included a request for Petitioner to pay that amount for the overpayment. The FAAR concluded, as to some patients, that Petitioner's documentation did not support the CPT codes that Petitioner used to bill and that Respondent used to pay for services. Thus, Respondent "down graded" the billing code to a lesser amount. As a result, the difference between the amount paid and the amount that should have been paid was an overpayment. The FAAR also stated that Petitioner billed and received payment for some undocumented services. In each such instance, Respondent considered the entire amount paid as an overpayment. The FAAR indicated that Petitioner billed Medicaid for some services at acute care hospital psychiatric units without documenting the medical records as to the appropriate CPT codes and medical illness diagnosis codes. Respondent adjusted the payments for these services to the appropriate psychiatric CPT codes. According to the FAAR, Petitioner billed and received payment for services which only allowed one unit of service per claim line. For this audit, Respondent allowed charges for the additional units of service where Petitioner's documentation for the additional dates of service supported the services allowed by the peer reviewer. The FAAR stated that Petitioner billed for psychiatric services at an ACLF or an assisted living facility. Medicaid normally does not pay for such services. However, in this case, Respondent adjusted the claims to a domiciliary or custodial care visit. Sometime after Petitioner received the FAAR, Petitioner sent Respondent some additional patients' medical records. Some of the records were duplicates of documents that Petitioner previously had furnished to Respondent. Other records were for services that may have been provided during the audit period but which were not a part of the random sample because Medicaid did not pay for them during relevant time frame. Respondent requested Dr. James R. Edgar to conduct a second peer review of Petitioner's correspondence and patient records to determine the appropriate level of service. Respondent provided Dr. Edgar with a copy of the patients' medical records, a copy of Respondent's worksheets, including Dr. Agbunag's notes, and the appropriate policy handbooks. Respondent requested Dr. Edgar to make changes in the level of service as he deemed appropriate. Dr. Edgar performed his review between July 25, 2004, and July 29, 2004, making an independent determination regarding issues of medical necessity and level of care. Initially, as to every disputed paid claim, Dr. Edgar agreed with Dr. Agbunag that Petitioner's patient records were insufficient to justify the procedure code and higher level of service claimed by Petitioner. Specifically, Dr. Edgar presented persuasive evidence that a number of paid claims, which Petitioner billed under CPT codes 99215, 99223, 99232, 99233, and 99238, were properly adjusted to CPT code 90862. Petitioner was not entitled to bill at a higher level of reimbursement because he failed to adequately document as to history, examination, medical decision-making, and time. Dr. Edgar agreed that, upon reconsideration, Petitioner's claim for Recipient 14, date of service September 7, 1998, billed under CPT code 99238, was appropriate. As to Recipient 1, date of service March 9, 1999, Petitioner was not entitled to bill for services using CPT code 99255, initial inpatient consultation for a new or established patient. CPT code 99222, initial hospital care, per day, for the E/M of a new or established patient, was more appropriate because Petitioner provided the consultation for one of his established patients. His services included a comprehensive history, a comprehensive examination, and medical decision making of moderate complexity. An independent analysis of the selection of the random sample, the statistical formula used by Respondent, and the statistical calculation used to determine the overpayment, confirms the conclusions in the FAAR. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent properly extrapolated the results from the sample to the total population. Out of a population of 222 recipients and a population of 2,123 claims, 30 recipients selected at random with 282 paid claims capture most of the characteristics of the total population. In this case, the statistical evidence indicates that 29 of the 30 recipients had overpayments. The odds that 29 out of 30 randomly selected recipients would have overpayments, if no overpayments existed, are greater than the odds of winning the Florida Lotto Quick Pick three weeks in a row. In fact, within a statistical certainly, the amount claimed in this cause based on the records of 30 recipients is lower than the reimbursement amount that Petitioner would owe if all records were reviewed. Respondent incurred costs during the investigation of this matter. The amount of those costs was not known at the time of the formal hearing.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order finding that Petitioner owes Respondent for an overpayment in the amount of $39,055.34, less an adjustment for the September 7, 1998 claim for Recipient 14, plus interest. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of March, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Alan Levine, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Know Building III 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Debora E. Fridie, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Mail Station 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 John D. Buchanan, Jr., Esquire Henry, Buchanan, Hudson, Suber & Carter, P.A. 117 South Gadsden Street Post Office Box 1049 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was overpaid by the Medicaid program as indicated in Respondent's Final Agency Audit Report dated June 20, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Henson was an authorized Medicaid provider during the audit period of January 1, 1998 through September 30, 2000.1 During the audit period, Dr. Henson had been issued Medicaid provider number 0467243-00.2 No dispute exists that, during the audit period, Dr. Henson had a valid Medicaid Provider Agreement(s) with AHCA.3 During the audit period, Dr. Henson was employed by Latin Quarter Medical Center, located at 855 Southwest 8th Street, Miami, Florida, at which he treated Medicaid recipients. Dr. Henson had been a surgeon but had suffered a stroke in December 1997, which caused him to be incapable of continuing to practice as a surgeon. He agreed to become employed with Latin Quarter Medical Center to work at its new clinic and to receive compensation for his services every two weeks. Latin Quarter Medical Center's patients were suffering from AIDS. Dr. Henson agreed to several terms and conditions in executing a Medicaid Provider Agreement (Agreement) with AHCA. Those terms and conditions included the following: Quality of Service. The provider agrees to provide medically necessary services or goods . . . agrees that services and goods billed to the Medicaid program must be medically necessary . . . The services and goods must have been actually provided to eligible Medicaid recipients by the provider prior to submitting the claim. Compliance. The provider agrees to comply with all local, state and federal laws, rules, regulation, licensure laws, Medicaid bulletins, manuals, handbooks and Statements of Policy as they may be amended from time to time. Term and signatures This provider agreement . . . shall remain in effect until July 1, 1999, unless otherwise terminated. . . . Provider Responsibilities. The Medical provider shall: * * * (b) Keep and maintain . . . all medical and Medicaid related records as the Agency may require and as it determines necessary; make available for state and federal audits for five years, complete and accurate medical . . . records that fully justify and disclose the extent of the goods and services rendered and billings made under the Medicaid. . . . The Agreement was signed by Dr. Henson in 1996. In a Noninstitutional Professional and Technical Medicaid Provider Agreement, Dr. Henson agreed to terms and conditions including the following: The provider agrees to keep complete and accurate medical . . . records that fully justify and disclose the extent of the services rendered and billings made under the Medicaid program . . . . The provider agrees that services or goods billed to the Medicaid program must be medically necessary . . . and the services and goods must have been actually provided to eligible Medicaid recipients by the provider prior to submitting a claim. The provider agrees to submit Medicaid claims in accordance with program policies and that payment by the program for services rendered will be based on the payment methodology in the applicable Florida Administrative Rule. . . . * * * 8. The provider and the Department [Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services] agree to abide by the provisions of the Florida Administrative Code, Florida Statutes, policies, procedures, manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program and Federal laws and regulations. The Agreement was signed by Dr. Henson in 1988. AHCA audited certain of Dr. Henson's Medicaid claims pertaining to services rendered between January 1, 1998 and September 30, 2000. By Preliminary Agency Audit Report (PAAR) dated April 12, 2001, AHCA notified Dr. Henson that, after a physician consultant with a specialty in infectious disease reviewed the Medical claims and medical records provided by Dr. Henson, a preliminary determination was made that certain claims in the amount of $124,556.83 were not covered by Medicaid. After the issuance of the PAAR, no further documentation was submitted by Dr. Henson to AHCA. As a result, AHCA issued a FAAR dated June 20, 2001, upholding the overpayment of $124,556.83. The FAAR indicated, among other things, that the documentation provided by Dr. Henson supported a lower level of office visit than the one billed and for which payment was received and, therefore, the difference between the payment for the appropriate level of service and the amount actually paid was an overpayment; that some of Dr. Henson's medical records failed to contain documentation for services which were billed and for which payment was made and, therefore, the payments for the inappropriate documentation was an overpayment; that some of the services rendered were inappropriately coded and the difference between payment for the proper code and the inappropriate code was an overpayment; and that some of the services for which billing was made and payment received were not medically necessary and those services were disallowed and were, therefore, an overpayment. The FAAR further provided how the overpayment was calculated, indicating, among other things, that a sample of 30 recipients of the 2936 claims submitted by Dr. Henson were reviewed for the period from January 1, 1998 through September 30, 2000; that a statistical formula for cluster sampling, with the formula being presented, was used; that the statistical formula was generally accepted; and that the statistical formula showed an overpayment in the amount of $124,556.83, with a 95 percent probability of correctness. The majority of the overpayment was due to denied claims for intravenous infusions of multi-vitamins, epogen and nupogen to adult HIV/AIDS patients. AHCA's representative primarily responsible for handling the audit of Dr. Henson was Sharon Dewey, a registered nurse employed in the Medicaid Program Integrity (MPI) division of AHCA. Nurse Dewey conducted an audit of Medicaid payments only under Dr. Henson's Medicaid Provider number. An on-site visit of Dr. Henson's office was made by Nurse Dewey. During the on-site visit, she provided Dr. Henson with a questionnaire, which was completed by her and signed by Dr. Henson, and which indicated that Dr. Henson was the only Medicaid Provider at the office at which he was located, Latin Quarter Medical Center, 855 Southwest 8th Street, Miami, Florida. At the on-site visit, Dr. Henson provided all of the medical documentation and medical recipient records for the audit period involved. All the Medicaid claims for the medical recipients were paid Medicaid claims originating only from Dr. Henson's Medical Provider number. Dr. Henson made available and provided to AHCA or AHCA's representatives any and all required Medicaid-related records and information pertaining to the audit that he had in his possession.4 He never refused to allow access to the records or information. Having received the medical recipient records from Dr. Henson, Nurse Dewey organized the records by patient names and dates of service and provided them to Dr. Joseph W. Shands, Jr., along with a worksheet for the audited claims for each patient. Dr. Shands is an expert in infectious diseases and the treatment and management of AIDS and HIV. Dr. Shands retired in 2002, and his practice was basically the same as Dr. Henson. No objection was made at hearing that Dr. Shands met the statutory definition of "peer." § 409.9131(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1999).5 The undersigned finds Dr. Shands' testimony persuasive. Dr. Shands reviewed the medical documentation provided by Dr. Henson to AHCA. The medical documentation that he reviewed indicated that the patients were "all HIV AIDS patients." Dr. Shands reviewed the particular medications given the patients; reviewed the reasons why the medications were given; considered and made a determination as to whether a justification existed for the administration of the medication; and, based on his determination, either allowed or disallowed the claim. He made no determinations as to the actual dollar amount of services provided. After reviewing the medical records, Dr. Shands made notations on the worksheets, signed the worksheets, and returned the worksheets to Nurse Dewey. Specific instances of acute attention involved the administration of intravenous (IV) multi-vitamins, epogen, nupogen, and Intravenous Immunoglobulin (IVIG). As to the IV of multi-vitamins, Dr. Henson prescribed this administration for almost all of his patients. Dr. Shands found that the patients were coming into the facility two to three times a week for the treatment, but he found no documented medical information to justify the use of IV multi-vitamins and determined these services were not medically necessary. In Dr. Shands' opinion an oral multi-vitamin would have been more appropriate and achieved the same result. An oral multi-vitamin is not recommended, according to Dr. Shands, where the patient is unable to digest the oral multi-vitamin. Notably, for one patient a notation was made that the patient refused pills, but a further notation indicated that Dr. Henson had prescribed the same patient pill-based medications for treatment, which negated the basis for the intravenous use. Furthermore, IV administration to an HIV/AIDS patient places the patient at an unnecessary risk of infection, which is not present with oral multi-vitamins. Dr. Henson testified that he was continuing the treatment of another physician, but he failed to make an independent medical judgment based upon his own medical findings. Further, no justification was in the medical records for the former physician's administration of IV multi-vitamins. Additionally, IV multi-vitamins were more costly than oral administration. And, with patients returning to the facility two to three times a week, the cost increased even more. Regarding epogen, Dr. Shands opined that certain administration was not medically necessary for the HIV/AIDS' patients. As to nupogen, Dr. Shands opined that certain administration was not medically necessary for the HIV/AIDS' patients. Regarding the administration of IVIG, Dr. Shands opined that the administration was not medically necessary for the HIV/AIDS' patients. As to certain office visits for the administration of IV multi-vitamins, epogen, nupogen, and IVIG, Dr. Shands opined that the office visits were unnecessary. Using the worksheets, with Dr. Shands' notations on them, together with Dr. Shands denials or reductions, Nurse Dewey calculated the overpayment associated with each of Dr. Henson's patients. Subsequently, a statistical calculation was applied by AHCA to extend the audit sample's total overall payment to all of Dr. Henson's Medicaid claims during the audit period, which resulted in a determination of an overpayment in the amount of $124,556.83. Dr. Henson suggests that his signature may have been falsified or forged on the medical records and information that he submitted to AHCA for its audit. Prior to hearing, he had an opportunity to review the medical records and information but could not identify one instance that his signature was falsified or forged. Consequently, a finding of fact is made that Dr. Henson signed the medical records and documentation provided to AHCA by him for the audit. Dr. Henson presented no expert testimony or any testimony to support the medical necessity or cost-effectiveness of the procedures that he used. Further, Dr. Henson contends that Latin Quarter Medical Center, the facility that employed him, received the Medicaid payments, not he. However, as the Medicaid Provider, he was not relieved of his responsibility to make sure that the medical procedures were medically necessary and cost-effective.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order finding that Arthur Henson, D.O., received overpayments in the Medicaid program in the amount of $124,556.83, during the audit period January 1, 1998 through September 30, 2000, and requiring Arthur Henson, D.O., to repay the overpayment amount. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 2006.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration is required by law and rule of the Agency to include the gain or loss on the sale of depreciable assets as the result of a sale or disposal, in the calculation of Medicaid allowable costs.
Findings Of Fact Prior to the hearing, the parties submitted a Joint Stipulation which is incorporated in part herein as follows: Petitioner purchased Orlando General Hospital ("OGH"), Medicaid provider number 120065, on December 31, 1990. Upon its sale, OGH merged into and became part of Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., wherein after it was known as Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., d/b/a Florida Hospital East ("Florida Hospital East"). Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., d/b/a Florida Hospital East is a wholly owned subsidiary of Adventist Health System Sunbelt Healthcare Corporation. Florida Hospital East assumed all of the assets and liabilities of OGH. OGH filed a terminating cost report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 1990. On December 31, 1990, the date of sale of OGH to Petitioner, OGH incurred a loss on the sale of the hospital, a depreciable asset. The loss on the sale of OGH was included on both OGH's Medicaid and Medicare terminating cost reports. A loss on the sale of a depreciable asset is the amount that the net book value of the asset sold exceeds the purchase price. A gain or loss on the sale of a depreciable asset is a capital cost. Due to the mechanism of the cost report, a loss on the sale of a depreciable asset is divided into "periods" based upon the time period to which the loss relates. The portion of the loss related to the fiscal year in which the asset is sold is referred to as a "current period" loss. The portion of the loss that relates to all fiscal years prior to the year in which the asset is sold is referred to as a "prior period" loss. Gains and losses related to the current period are included on Worksheet A of the Medicare and Medicaid cost report. Current period capital costs flow to Worksheet B-II Part and B Part III [sic] of the Medicaid cost report. Gains and losses related to the prior period are included on Worksheet E of the Medicare and Medicaid cost reports. OGH's current period is the fiscal year ending 12/31/90. OGH's prior periods in which it participated in the Medicaid Program are 10/24/84 through 12/31/89. OGH's audited Medicaid cost report included in allowable Medicaid costs a loss on the sale of OGH related to the current period. OGH's audited Medicaid cost report did not include in allowable Medicaid costs a loss on the sale of OGH related to the prior periods. The loss on the sale of OGH related to the current period was included in Worksheet A of OGH's audited Medicaid cost report. These costs, including the loss on the sale of OGH, flowed to Worksheet B Part II. OGH's audited Medicare cost report included as allowable Medicare costs the loss on the sale of OGH related to both the current and prior periods in the amount of $9,874,047. The loss from the sale of OGH related to the current period was included on Worksheet A of OGH's audited Medicare cost report. The costs from Worksheet A of OGH's audited Medicare cost report flowed to Worksheet B Part II of OGH's audited Medicare cost report. The loss related to the prior period was included on Worksheet E Part B of OGH's audited Medicaid cost report. The Agency utilizes costs included on Worksheet A of the Medicaid cost report to calculate Medicaid allowable costs. The Agency utilizes the capital costs included on Worksheet B Part II and/or B Part III to calculate allowable Medicaid fixed costs. The Agency does not utilize costs included on Worksheet E Part III to calculate Medicaid allowable costs. The Agency reimburses providers based upon Medicaid allowable costs. aa. The Agency did not include the portion of the loss on the sale of OGH related to the prior periods in the calculation of the OGH's Medicaid allowable costs. bb. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. (Intermediary), contracted with the Agency to perform all audits of Medicaid cost reports. Agency reimbursement to Medicaid providers is governed by Florida's Title XIX Inpatient Hospital Reimbursement Plan (Plan), which has been incorporated in Rule 59G-6.020, Florida Administrative Code. The Plan provides that Medicaid reimbursement for inpatient services shall be based upon a prospectively determined per diem. The payment is based upon the facility's allowable Medicaid costs which include both variable costs and fixed costs. Fixed costs include capital costs and allowable depreciation costs. The per diem payment is calculated by the Agency based upon each facility's allowable Medicaid costs which must be taken by the agency from the facility's cost report. Capital costs, such as depreciation, are found on Worksheet B, Part II and Part III. The Plan requires all facilities participating in the Medicaid program to submit an annual cost report to the Agency. The report is to be in detail, listing their "costs for their entire reporting year making appropriate adjustment as required by the plan for the determination of allowable costs." The cost report must be prepared in accordance with the Medicare method of reimbursement and cost finding, except as modified by the Plan. The cost reports relied upon by the Agency to set rates are audited by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. which has been directed by the Agency to follow Medicare principles of reimbursement in its audit of cost reports. Prior to January 11, 1995, the Plan did not expressly state whether capital gains or losses relating to a change of facility ownership were allowable costs. The 1995 amendment to the Plan contained language expressly providing "[f]or the purposes of this plan, gains or losses resulting from a change of ownership will not be included in the determination of allowable cost for Medicaid reimbursement." No change was made by the amendment to the Medicare principles of reimbursement regarding the treatment of gains and losses on the sale of depreciable assets. The Medicare principles of reimbursement provides that gains and losses from the disposition of depreciable assets are includable in computing allowable costs. The Provider Reimbursement Manual (HIM-15)(PRM), identifies the methods of disposal for assets that are recognized. They include a bona fide sale of depreciable assets, but do not mention a change of ownership. PRM Section 132 treats a loss on a sale of a depreciable asset as an adjustment to depreciation for both the current and periods. Depreciable assets with an expected life of more than two years may not be expensed in the year in which they are put into service. They must be capitalized and a proportionate share of the cost expensed as depreciation over the life of the property. To do so, the provider must estimate the useful life of the property based upon the guidelines of the American Hospital Association, and divide the cost by the number of years of estimated life. It is this yearly depreciation figure which is claimed on the cost report and which is reimbursed. When a depreciable asset is sold for less than book value (net undepreciated value), the provider suffers a loss. Petitioner claims that Medicare holds that in such a case it must be concluded that the estimated depreciation was erroneous and the provider did not receive adequate reimbursement during the years the asset was in service. Medicare accounting procedures do not distinguish between the treatment of a loss on the sale of depreciable assets as related to current and prior periods. PIM Section 132 requires that Medicare recognize the entire loss as an allowable cost for both the current and prior periods, and Medicare treated Petitioner's loss from the sale of its facility as an allowable cost for Medicare reimbursement under both current and prior periods. With the adoption of the January 1995 amendment, however, the wording of the state plan was changed to specifically prohibit gains or losses from a change of ownership from being included in allowable costs for Medicaid reimbursement. This was the first time the state plan addressed gains and losses on the disposal of depreciable assets resulting from a change of ownership. The Agency contends, however, that it has never reimbursed for losses on disposal of property due to a change of ownership, and that the inclusion of the new language was to clarify a pre-existing policy which was being followed at the time of the 1995 amendment, and which goes back to the late 1970s. It would appear, however, that the policy was never written down; was never conveyed to Blue Cross/Blue shield; was never formally conveyed to Medicaid providers; and was never conveyed to the community at large. When pressed, the Agency could not identify any specific case where the policy was followed by the Agency. While admitting that it is Agency practice not to treat losses from the sale of depreciable assets in prior periods as an allowable cost, Petitioner contends that it has been the Agency's practice to treat the loss on the sale of depreciable assets relating to the current period as an allowable cost, and cited several instances where this appears to have been done. The Agency contends that any current period losses paid were paid without knowledge of the Agency, in error, and in violation of the plan. On October 25, 1996, the Agency entered a Final Order in a case involving Florida Hospital/Waterman, Inc., as Petitioner, and the Agency as Respondent. This case was filed by the Petitioner to challenge the Agency's treatment of the loss on the sale of Waterman Medical Center, Inc., another of Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt Healthcare Corporation, and the Final Order in issue incorporated a stipulation into which the parties had entered and which addressed the issue in question here. The stipulation included certain position statements including: A loss on the sale of depreciable assets is an allowable cost under the Medicare Principles of Reimbursement. The State Plan does not specify that the loss on the sale of a depreciable asset is to be treated in a manner different than under the Medicare Principles of Reimbursement. Thus the loss on the sale of a depreciable asset is an allowable cost under the State Plan. The Agency agrees, in accordance with the Medicare Principles of Reimbursement, that under the terms of the State Plan, prior period losses for Waterman will be allocated to prior periods and included in the calculation of the per diem and per visit rates. According to William G. Nutt, Petitioner's director of reimbursement, the only difference between the facts of the Waterman case and the instant case is that they relate to the sale of different facilities. The treatment of loss on the sale of depreciable assets as outlined in the Waterman stipulation is in conflict with the amended Plan and with the unwritten and unuttered Agency policy as urged by the Agency in this case. The Agency agreed in one case to a treatment of loss which it now rejects in the instant case. Petitioner urges that subsequent to the settlement of the Waterman case, but before the instant case was set for hearing, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations during which, according to counsel for the Agency, they made "significant" progress toward applying the settlement in the Waterman case to the current case. In a motion filed to delay the setting of this case for hearing, counsel for the Agency indicated the parties were "finalizing" settlement to resolve the case without resorting to a final hearing, and in a follow-up agreed motion for continuance, advised that the "parties [had] finalized a settlement document [which they were] in the process of executing. The settlement agreement reached by the parties was signed by a representative of the Petitioner and then forwarded to the Agency for signature. The document was not signed by the Agency, and when Petitioner sought enforcement of the "settlement" by an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, the request was denied as being outside the jurisdiction of the judge, and the matter was set for hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order including the loss on the sale of Orlando General Hospital as an allowable cost for determining Petitioner's entitlement to Medicaid reimbursement for both current and prior years. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Joanne B. Erde, Esquire Broad and Cassel Miami Center Suite 3000 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Jonathan E. Sjostrom, Esquire Steel Hector & Davis LLP 215 South Monroe Street Suite 601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1804 Mark S. Thomas, Esquire Madeline McGuckin, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Petitioner received Medicaid overpayments, and, if so, what is the aggregate amount of the overpayments.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent, the Agency for Health Care Administration, is the single state agency charged with administration of the Medicaid program in Florida under Section 409.907, Florida Statutes. Petitioner, The Doctor's Office, was a Florida corporation approved by the Agency to provide group Medicaid services. At all times relevant to this matter, Petitioner was owned entirely by non-physicians who employed salaried physicians to provide Medicaid services. Petitioner, at all times relevant to this matter, offered physician services to Medicaid beneficiaries pursuant to a contract with the Agency under provider number 371236P-00. Petitioner, pursuant to the specific terms in the contract with the Agency, agreed to abide by the Florida Administrative Code, Florida Statutes, policies, procedures, manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program, and Federal laws and regulations. Petitioner, pursuant to its contract with the Agency, agreed to only seek reimbursement from the Medicaid program for services that were "medically necessary" and "Medicaid compensable." The Audit In mid-1996, the Agency, pursuant to its statutory responsibility, advised Petitioner that it intended to audit Petitioner's paid Medicaid claims for the alleged medical services it provided between July 1, 1994 and June 30, 1996. In September 1996, the Agency conducted an initial audit site visit, and randomly selected 61 patient files for review. The complete patient files, provided by Petitioner, were reviewed by Sharon Dewey, a registered nurse consultant and Agency employee, as well as Dr. Solenberger, a physician consultant and Agency employee. In accordance with its procedure, the Agency determined that Petitioner had submitted a total of 580 claims for reimbursement relating to the 61 patient files and had received full payment from the Medicaid program for each claim. On March 3, 1997, the Agency issued a Preliminary Agency Audit Report (PAAR), and advised Petitioner that it had over-billed Medicaid and received an overpayment from the program. Shortly thereafter, the Agency auditors, Dr. Solenberger and Ms. Dewey, met with Frank Colavecchio, Petitioner's Corporate Representative, and discussed the Medicaid violations alleged in the review. During the meeting, the Agency requested Mr. Colavecchio to instruct Petitioner's staff physicians to review their records and provide a written rebuttal to the Agency's initial determinations. Within days, and prior to any further action, the Agency placed the audit on indefinite hold. The Agency decided to delay the audit until certain proposed legislation relating to peer review and the integrity of the Medicaid reimbursement program was enacted. Two years later, Section 409.9131, Florida Statutes, was enacted during the 1999 legislative session and became law. Shortly thereafter, in 1999, the Agency hired Dr. Larry Deeb, a board-certified, practicing pediatrician, to perform a peer review of Petitioner's practices and procedures. Dr. Deeb has performed similar medical records reviews for the Medicaid program since 1981 and possesses a thorough understanding of CPT coding and the EPSDT requirements. Dr. Deeb received the medical files provided by Petitioner, and reviewed each patient file in the random sample, including the medical services and Medicaid-related claim records. On November 11, 1999, Dr. Deeb completed his peer review of 564 of the 580 claims provided in the random sample and forwarded his findings to the Agency. Dr. Deeb advised the Agency that 16 reimbursement claims involved adult patients and he therefore did not review them. Utilizing Dr. Deebs findings, the Agency employed appropriate and valid auditing and statistical methods, and calculated the total Medicaid overpayment that Petitioner received during the two year audit period. On July 17, 2000, approximately four years after the original audit notification, the Agency issued its Final Agency Audit Report (FAAR). The Agency advised Petitioner that, based upon its review of the random sample of 61 patients for whom Petitioner submitted 580 claims for payment between 1994 and 1996, Petitioner received $875,261.03 in total overpayment from the Medicaid program during the audit period. Petitioner denied the overpayment and requested a formal administrative hearing. Following the initial commencement of the final hearing in this matter in December 2001, Dr. Deeb, again, reviewed the disputed claims and modified his opinion relating to 6 claims. Thereafter, the Agency recalculated the alleged overpayment and demanded Petitioner to pay $870,748.31. The Allegations The Agency alleges that specific claims submitted by Petitioner, which were paid by the Medicaid program, fail to comply with specific Medicaid requirements and therefore must be reimbursed. Since its inception, the Medicaid program has required providers to meet the Medicaid program's policies and procedures as set forth in federal, state, and local law. To qualify for payment, it is the provider's duty to ensure that all claims "[a]re provided in accord with applicable provisions of all Medicaid rules, regulations, handbooks, and policies and in accordance with . . . state . . . law." Section 409.913(5)(e), Florida Statutes (1993). Medicaid manuals are available to all Providers. Petitioner, as a condition of providing Medicaid services pursuant to the Medicaid program, is bound by the requirements and restrictions specified in the manuals, and under the contract, is required to reimburse the Medicaid program for any paid claims found to be in violation of Medicaid policies and procedures. The evidence presented at hearing established that Petitioner frequently violated various Medicaid policies and procedures. First, Petitioner repeatedly failed to comply with Section 10.9 of the Medicaid Physician's Provider Handbook, (MPPH), and Sections 409.905(9), 409.913(5)(e), 409.913(7)(e), and 409.913(7)(f), (1993, 1994 Supp. 1995, and 1996), Florida Statutes, which require all medical services to be rendered by, or supervised by a physician, and attested to by the physician's signature. Medical records reflecting services for paid claims must be physician signature certified and dated, or the services are not defined as physician's services. In addition, Petitioner routinely failed to correctly document the provision of certain physician's assistant (P.A.) Medicaid services that require the personal supervision of a physician or osteopath. See Chapter 1 of the Physician Assistant Coverage and Limitations Handbook, March 1995, and Appendix D (Glossary) in the Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook, HCFA-1500 (HCFA-1500). In addition, Petitioner failed to comply with Medicaid regulations that require an approved physician to be present in the facility when certain P.A. services are delivered and to attest to it by signature within twenty-four hours of service. See Section 11.1 of the MPPH, effective July 1994, and Sections 409.905, and 409.913 (1993, 1994 Supp., 1995, and 1996 Supp.), Florida Statutes. The evidence presented at hearing also demonstrates that Petitioner repeatedly violated specific record keeping requirements located in Section 10.9 of the MPPH, Sections 10.6 and 11.5 of the Medicaid EPSDT Provider Handbook (EPSDT), and Sections 409.913(5)(e), 409.913(7)(e), and 409.913(7)(f), (1993, 1994 Supp., 1995, and 1996), Florida Statutes. In addition, the Agency demonstrated that Petitioner occasionally failed to document support for the necessity of certain services or simply billed for services that were not medically necessary. As indicated, Medicaid policy limits a physician to bill only for services that are medically necessary and defines the circumstances and varying levels of care authorized. In fact, Section 11.1 of the MPPH, effective July 1994, provides in part: The physician services program pays for services performed by a licensed physician or osteopath within the scope of the practice of medicine or osteopathy as defined by state law . . . . The services in this program must be performed for medical necessity for diagnosis and treatment of an illness on an eligible Medicaid recipient. Delivery of all services in this handbook must be done by or under the personal supervision of a physician or osteopath . . . at any place of service . . . . Each service type listed has special policy requirements that apply specifically to it. These must be adhered to for payment. The manual further provides clear guidelines defining authorized services for reimbursement which Petitioner apparently overlooked. For example, the manual defines the four types of medical history exams that Medicaid providers may conduct, the nature of the problems presented, and the appropriate and authorized tests. The manual also identifies the varying degrees of medical decision-making complexity related to Medicaid services and provides instructions relating to the method of selecting the correct evaluation and management code for billing. Petitioner consistently violated coding restrictions. Moreover, the Medicaid policy manual also outlines the specific procedures and billing requirements necessary for seeking payment for medical services including the early periodic screening for diagnosis and treatment (EPSDT) services. Chapter 10 and 11 of the MPPH specifically state that services that do not include all listed components of the EPSDT are not defined as an EPSDT, and upon audit, the Agency re-calculated Petitioner's medical services at the appropriate procedure code. Stipulation Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the parties stipulated that certain paid claims were correctly determined by the Agency to be overpayments. Specifically, the parties agreed that portions of samples 1, 3, 14, 21, 28, 41, 46, 47, 51, 53, and 56 could not be claimed for reimbursement since lab services which are part of an office visit reimbursement and/or lab service fees performed by an independent outside lab are not permitted. In addition, the parties agreed that specific portions of samples 1, 13, 14, 27, 28, 33, 35, 43, 46, 47, 52, 53, and 55 could not be claimed since Modifier 26 billing, the professional component, is only appropriate when the service is rendered in a hospital and Petitioner's services were rendered in an office. Pediatric Sample With regard to the random sample of pediatric files, upon careful review, the evidence presented at hearing sufficiently demonstrates that Petitioner was overpaid the following amounts on the following paid claims for the following reasons: The prolonged physician's services billed to Medicaid were not documented as having been provided or medically necessary. Cluster Number Date of Service Procedure Code Billed and Paid Overpayment 1 1/18/1996 99354 $ 36.64 1 5/14/1996 99354 $ 36.64 13 9/25/1995 99354 $ 36.64 19 9/28/1994 99354 $ 39.50 21 12/18/1995 99354 $ 36.64 28 3/06/1995 99354 $ 36.64 42 6/04/1996 99354 $ 36.64 43 12/19/1994 99354 $ 36.64 47 9/28/1994 99354 $ 39.50 47 10/17/1995 99354 $ 36.64 51 4/05/1995 99354 $ 36.64 53 11/02/1995 99354 $ 36.64 56 5/01/1996 99354 $ 36.64 The level of care billed to and reimbursed by Medicaid at the 99215 office visit procedure code level was improper since the level of care provided was at the 99213 office visit procedure code level. Cluster Number Date of Service Overpayment 1 9/14/1995 $ 34.14 1 1/18/1996 $ 34.14 1 5/14/1996 $ 34.14 33 9/28/1994 $ 20.00 47 10/17/1995 $ 34.14 The level of care billed and paid at the 99215 office visit procedure code level was improper since the level of care that was provided was at the 99214 office visit procedure code level. Cluster Number Date of Service Overpayment 53 5/31/1995 $ 21.69 The level of care billed and paid at the 99205 office visit procedure code level was improper since the level of care that was provided was at the 99204 office visit procedure code level. Cluster Number Date of Service Overpayment 25 7/27/1994 $ 2.00 The level of care that was billed and paid at the 99205 office visit procedure code level was improper since the level of care that was provided was at the 99203 office visit procedure code level. Cluster Number Date of Service Overpayment 35 5/11/1995 $ 37.96 51 12/08/1994 $ 15.00 55 11/21/1995 $ 37.96 58 9/22/1995 $ 37.96 The level of care that was billed and paid at the 99215 office visit procedure code level was improper since the level of care that was provided was at the 99204 office visit procedure code level. Cluster Number Date of Service Overpayment 43 12/11/1994 ($ 3.00) credit The level of care that was billed and paid at the 99205 office visit procedure code level was improper since the medical services provided and documentation supported an EPSDT visit. Cluster Number Date of Service Overpayment 53 2/06/1995 $ 16.53 The required components of the EPSDT were not documented as being performed at the office visit that had been claimed and paid as an EPSDT and therefore, the difference between the EPSDT payment received and the value of the procedure code for the documented level of office visit that occurred (i.e., 99214, 99213, 99212, 99211, or 99203), is deemed an overpayment. Cluster Number Date of Service Level of Visit Overpayment 1 7/28/1995 99213 $ 39.82 3 6/28/1995 99213 $ 39.82 5 3/03/1995 99203 $ 21.43 6 7/07/1994 99213 $ 5.00 10 8/17/1995 99212 $ 43.82 12 1/31/1996 99204 $ 0.00 14 5/31/1995 99213 $ 39.82 18 10/04/1994 99213 $ 5.00 18 1/29/1996 99214 $ 27.37 20 8/25/1994 99213 $ 5.00 21 12/11/1995 99214 $ 27.37 29 8/17/1994 99212 $ 9.00 Cluster Number Date of Service Level of Visit Overpayment 29 9/06/1995 99213 $ 39.82 40 7/25/1994 99203 $ 0.00 41 5/06/1996 99214 $ 27.37 46 9/19/1994 99213 $ 5.00 46 10/19/1995 99213 $ 39.82 47 11/02/1994 99213 $ 5.00 51 9/07/1995 99213 $ 39.82 53 7/10/1995 99213 $ 39.82 53 1/19/1995 99213 $ 39.82 59 5/02/1996 99203 $ 43.39 Adult Samples At hearing, Petitioner disputed all of the Agency's findings relating to patients over the age of 21 and objected to Dr. Deeb, a pediatrician, performing any review of their files. While Dr. Deeb is not the appropriate peer to review adult patient files, the following adult claims did not require substantive peer review and resulted in overpayment due to the stated reason: There were not any medical records in existence to indicate that any medical services were performed. Cluster Number Date of Service Procedure Code Billed and Paid Overpayment 2 2/20/1995 99215 $ 53.00 2 7/11/1995 99215 $ 59.14 2 8/09/1995 99215 $ 57.14 2 9/07/1995 99213 $ 23.00 2 10/11/1995 99213 $ 23.00 2 1/02/1996 99213 $ 23.00 2 3/22/1996 73560/Rad.Ex. $ 16.36 2 4/01/1996 99215 $ 57.14 2 4/05/1996 99213 $ 23.00 2 4/23/1996 99213 $ 23.00 15 2/16/1996 99213 $ 23.00 15 2/19/1996 99215 $ 57.14 16 5/14/1996 Blood Count $ 8.00 Cluster Number Date of Service Procedure Code Billed and Paid Overpayment 16 5/14/1996 UA $ 3.00 16 5/14/1996 99215 $ 57.14 23 7/28/1994 99213 $ 23.00 23 5/09/1995 72069/26 Rad.Ex. $ 6.98 23 5/09/1995 72069/Rad.Ex. $ 17.45 23 10/20/1995 99213 $ 23.00 34 4/24/1996 99214 $ 35.45 57 11/17/1995 99215 $ 59.14 60 4/10/1996 99215 $ 57.14 61 5/22/1995 99213 $ 23.00 The medical records failed to contain the required physician's signature and date authenticating the fact that the services billed were performed by either P.A. Olsen or P.A. Avidon under physician supervision. The services provided by the non-physician employee were reviewed and down-coded by the Agency to the appropriate level physician's office visit code. Cluster Number Date of Service Proc. Code Pd./ P. Code Allowed Overpayment 2 6/30/1995 99215/99212 $ 36.14 2 7/20/1995 99215/99213 $ 34.14 2 7/28/1995 99215/99213 $ 34.14 2 9/05/1995 99215/99212 $ 36.14 8 4/17/1995 99205/99203 $ 35.96 17 3/27/1995 99205/99203 $ 35.96 23 5/09/1995 99215/99213 $ 32.14 23 6/09/1995 99215/99213 $ 32.14 34 4/23/1996 99205/99203 $ 35.96 The medical records failed to contain the required physician signature authenticating the fact that the services were provided by a physician. The services provided were reviewed and down-coded by the Agency to the appropriate level physician's office visit code. Procedure Code Cluster Number Date of Service Billed and Paid Overpayment 2 6/14/1995 99215/99211 $ 45.14 16 5/15/1996 99215/99211 $ 45.14 61 5/05/1995 99205/99204 $ 14.53 The provider improperly sought payment for lab services that were part of the office visit reimbursement and/or lab services performed by an independent outside lab. Cluster Number Date of Service Procedure Billed and Paid Overpayment 2 3/08/1996 UA $ 3.00 2 4/03/1996 UA $ 3.00 15 2/08/1996 UA $ 3.00 16 5/15/1996 Blood Count $ 8.50 16 5/15/1996 Blood Count $ 8.00 The provider improperly sought payment for Modifier 26 billings (professional component) which are only appropriate when the service is rendered in a hospital. Cluster Number Date of Service Procedure Billed and Paid Overpayment 2 2/17/1995 Radiologic exam $ 6.98 2 6/14/1995 Radiologic exam $ 7.20 8 4/17/1995 Tympanometry $ 9.00 16 5/13/1996 Radiologic exam $ 5.45 16 5/15/1996 Radiologic exam $ 6.98 In addition to the policy and procedural violations, Petitioner, in egregious violation of the Medicaid program, admittedly submitted Medicaid claims for the services of specialist physicians (such as an allergist, OB/GYN, podiatrist, psychologists, and ophthalmologists) not within its Provider group, collected Medicaid funds based on those claims, and reimbursed the respective specialist. While Petitioner's corporate representative, Mr. Colavecchio, was admittedly responsible for the coding and billing of the Medicaid services submitted for reimbursement, he was minimally aware of the Medicaid policy requirements and possessed limited working knowledge of CPT coding and EPSDT billing. In addition, Petitioner's employees, Dr. Keith Wintermeyer and Dr. Marcia Malcolm, were only moderately familiar with the CPT coding and EPSDT component requirements. They provided little input to Petitioner regarding CPT coding and the sufficiency of certain physician's services relating to EPSDT billing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency re-calculate the overpayment consistent with the Findings of Fact, and include only those identified violations in the cluster samples of the adult patient files, and issue a Final Order requiring Petitioner to reimburse, within 60 days, the Agency for the Medicaid overpayments plus any interest that may accrue after entry of the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Felker-Little, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Charles D. Jamieson, Esquire Ward, Damon & Posner, P.A. 4420 Beacon Circle West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
