The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner received Medicaid overpayments and, if so, the total amount of the overpayments. Petitioner agreed at the onset of the hearing not to contest the findings of the Agency that Petitioner received Medicaid monies to which he was not entitled. Therefore, the issue remaining for determination is: Whether Respondent calculated the overpayment amount of $52,850.82 using a valid statistical formula and a valid sample of recipients and claims during the audit period of March 1, 2000, through March 1, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses while testifying, the documentary materials received in evidence, official recognition granted, evidentiary rulings made, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant and material facts are established. The Agency is charged with administration of the Medicaid program in Florida pursuant to Sections 409.907 and 409.913, Florida Statutes (2003). Among its administrative duties, the Agency operates a program to oversee the activities of Florida Medicaid providers to ensure that fraudulent and abusive behavior and neglect occur to the minimum extent possible and to recover overpayments and impose sanctions as appropriate. "Overpayment" is 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." § 409.913(1)(d), Fla. Stat. (2000). The FAAR, covering the audit period of March 1, 2000, through March 1, 2002, together with the Agency's work papers, set out a Medicaid overpayment amount of $52,850.82 that the Agency seeks to recoup from Petitioner. Petitioner is a physician enrolled in the Medicaid program under provider number 0580091-00, who operated under his provider number during the audit period of March 1, 2000, through March 1, 2002, under the auspices of a standard Medicaid provider agreement. As a part of the Medicaid provider agreement, the provider agrees to comply with all local, state and federal laws, rules, regulations, licensure laws, Medicaid bulletins, and statements of policy. Petitioner participated in the Medicaid program during the FAAR period of March 1, 2000, through March 1, 2002, and received payment for the services that the Agency now questions and are the subject of the audit. During the above audit period, the applicable statutes, rules, and Medicaid handbooks required Petitioner to retain all medical, fiscal, professional, and business records on all services provided to a Medicaid recipient. Petitioner had to retain these records for at least five years from the date of services. The Florida Medicaid program prepares and furnishes handbooks to all enrolled Medicaid providers, including Petitioner. These handbooks set forth the Medicaid policies with regard to services rendered and billed by providers. Petitioner had a duty to make sure that each claim submitted was true and accurate and was for goods and services that were provided, by an enrolled Medicaid provider, in accordance with the requirements of Medicaid rules, handbooks, and policies, and in accordance with federal and state law. Medicaid providers who do not comply with the Medicaid documentation and record retention policies hereinabove may be subject to administrative sanctions and/or recoupment of Medicaid payments. Medicaid payments for services that lack required documentation and/or appropriate signatures will be recouped. Mr. Hector Tapining (Mr. Tapining) and Phyllis Stiver (Nurse Stiver), registered nurse consultant for Medicaid Program Integrity, conducted an on-site visit to Petitioner's office and requested records. From the files of Petitioner, Mr. Tapining generated a random list of 30 Medicaid recipients (the cluster sample) who had received services by Petitioner during the two- year audit period of March 1, 2000, through March 1, 2002. The Agency thereafter generated worksheets reflecting: (1) the total number of Medicaid recipients during the audit period; (2) total number of claims made by Petitioner, with dates of medical services provided; (3) the total amount of money paid Petitioner during the audit period; and (4) the analyst's worksheets representing his review of each recipient's claim(s) for the audit period. Additional Agency-generated worksheets reflected: (1) the total number of Medicaid recipients during the audit period; (2) the total number of claims of Petitioner, with dates of service; (3) the total amount of money paid to Petitioner during the audit period; and (4) the analyst's worksheets representing his review of each recipient's claim(s) for the audit period. Mr. Tapining provided the worksheets to Nurse Stiver for her review of compliance with Medicaid enrollment and documentation. Mr. Tapining provided the worksheets to E. Rawson Griffin, III, M.D. (Dr. Griffin), the medical records consultant, for his review and evaluation of appropriate billing codes. The formula used by the Agency is a valid statistical formula, the random sample used by the Agency was statistically significant, the cluster sample was random, and the algebraic formula and the statistical formula used by the Agency are valid formulas. Dr. Griffin, after review of 30 patient records, concluded that Petitioner engaged in a general pattern of over coding at the highest level of code (99205) for services rendered that appeared to be rather straight-forward and simple for the medical services rendered at the time of each visit. Over coding is the term employed when supporting documentation for medical billing does not support the billing code chosen and assigned by the provider. In his review, Dr. Griffin saw no middle codes (99213s and/or 99214s) billed by Petitioner. Dr. Griffin opined that it was extraordinary that Petitioner would see and service 30 patients on their first visits, who at that time presented a complaint necessitating a medical necessity level code 99205, the highest level of Medicaid service. Continuing, Dr. Griffin explained that over coding is entering in the patient's billing statement a code higher than the patient's medical complaint and the Patient's recorded medical necessity warranted for the visit or visits (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) on the date those services were provided by Petitioner. In Dr. Griffin's opinion, Medicaid billing codes are to be determined by consideration of the following medical factors: (1) the patient's particular medical complaint and the degree of complexity of that complaint at the time of the initial visit, (2) the type of and the complexity of medical examinations and the tests necessarily required to be administered based upon the type and complexity of the initial complaint, and (3) the resulting interpretations of the tests and the examinations administered for treatment of the complaint. It is only after completion of the above analysis and documentation in the patient's medical records, would a code 22915 billing be appropriate. Dr. Griffin's analysis of the cluster sample of 30 Medicaid records of patients serviced by Petitioner resulted in his down coding Petitioner’s billing as shown below.2 I.D. Number Service Date Code Billed Adjustment B.K. 1 03-29-2000 215 (5) 214 B.K. 1 07-19-2000 214 213 1 08-17-2000 214 213 1 12-11-2000 215 214 1 02-22-2001 215 214 1 05-23-2001 214 213 1 06-24-2001 214 212 J.A.C. 4 No date 215 214 J.R. 5 10-02-2000 215 213 B.F. 6 07-25-2000 215 213 F.H. 8 04-10-2000 215 213 F.H. 8 05-04-2000 214 213 (2 visits) D.C. 9 01-23-2000 215 213 T.M. 10 06-07-2000 215 213 T.M. 10 06-28-2000 214 213 D.W. 13 01-12-2000 215 213 P.L. 14 01-10-2000 214 213 I.H. 15 12-18-2000 215 213 M.V. 17 04-10-2000 215 213 R.R. 21 04-17-2001 214 213 S.K. 25 11-20-2000 212 211 A.H. 26 12-19-2000 215 212 T.P. 27 02-20-2000 215 213 M.R. 28 11-14-2002 215 214 E.C. 29 04-28-2000 214 213 E.C. 07-03-2000 214 213 12-28-2000 214 212 01-02-2000 214 212 01-23-2000 214 212 02-06-2000 214 212 04-03-2000 214 212 (6 visits) R.S. 30 04-16-2001 215 213 Nurse Stiver reviewed the cluster sample of 30 Medicaid records of patients serviced by Petitioner for compliance with Medicaid policy(s) to ensure that services billed are the services for which Medicaid pays and are services that meet all aspects of the Medicaid policy(s) as specified in the Medicaid Handbook. Medicaid policy, regarding provider enrollment, requires (all) providers who services Medicaid patients to be (individually) enrolled in the Medicaid program as providers before providing service and billing Medicaid for those services. The Agency verifies the education, credentials, and criminal background of each enrollee to ensure the safety of Medicaid recipients. The individual provider enrollment is required as a condition precedent for providers to bill Medicaid for services and to be paid by Medicaid for those services. The enrollment requirement includes PAs and ARNPs. Nurse Stiver's review of Petitioner's documents sought to ascertain whether each provider who actually rendered services had executed a voluntary enrollment contract agreement between the Agency and that provider. In these contract agreements, the provider agrees to comply with all laws and rules pertaining to the Medicaid program when furnishing a service or goods to a Medicaid recipient, and the Agency agrees to pay a sum, determined by a fee schedule, payment methodology, or other manner, for the service or goods provided to the Medicaid recipient. The Medicaid Handbook requires separate and/or individual enrollment of each and every entity that provides Medicaid service(s) to Medicaid recipients. The mandatory enrollment includes a provider(s) who makes written entries on and/or signs Medicaid documents. Should the medical service provider and the provider documenting the Medicaid recipient's medical files and the provider billing Medicaid for services rendered be different providers, each provider must be individually enrolled in the Medicaid program. Within a chain of provider entities, the failure of one provider entity to be enrolled entitles the Agency to full recoupment of all Medicaid payments made to the enrolled Provider. Nurse Stiver applied the above analysis to the cluster sample of 30 Medicaid recipients' records recovered from Petitioner's files and to the Agency's worksheets. Nurse Stiver's review and her investigation revealed specific instances in which the paid billing claims evidenced that Petitioner's non-enrolled PAs and/or Petitioner's non-enrolled ARNP either provided the medical services or documented the medical services provided to the Medicaid recipients as shown below: Patient Service Date(s) Services and/or documentation 1. B.K. Serviced 9 times Signature-not enrolled 2. E.J. 08-14-01 Records written and signed by PA not enrolled and (not countersigned by Petitioner) 3. E.T. Serviced 4 times Services provided not entitled to Medicaid payment (unauthorized) J.A. (stipulation) Stipulation3 B.F. 11 visits-serviced Provider not enrolled M.R. 7 visits-serviced Provider not enrolled F.H. 11 visits-serviced Provider not enrolled through 12. Stipulations 13. D.W. 2 visits-serviced Provider not enrolled 14. through 17. Stipulations 18. L.A. 5 visits-serviced Provider not enrolled 19. and 20. Stipulations 21. R.R. 3 visits-serviced Provider not enrolled 22. and 23. Stipulations 24. L.S. 1 visit-serviced Provider not enrolled 25. S.K. 3 visits-serviced Provider not enrolled 26. through 28. Stipulations 29. E.C. 12 visits-serviced Provider not enrolled 30. Stipulation After the review and examination of the claims submitted within the cluster sample, Nurse Stiver concluded the above services billed to the Agency were not performed by Petitioner. She opined that either or both of Petitioner's employees, Justo Lugo and Phillip Nguyen (PAs) and/or Andrea McDonald (ARNP) provided or assisted in providing services. As non-enrolled providers in the Medicaid program, the PAs and the ARNP’s participation in providing services to Medicaid recipients and/or participation in assisting Petitioner in providing medical services and/or participation in Petitioner's billing Medicaid for medical services to Medicaid recipients violated Medicaid policy. Respondent established that the Medicaid program payments for services provided by an individual not enrolled as a provider in the Medicaid program are overpayments of which the Agency is entitled to full recoupment. After the reviews and the analysis by Nurse Stiver and Dr. Griffin, using the Agency's formula for calculating the extrapolated overpayments, the Agency determined overpayment in the amount of $64,453.74 to have occurred. Based upon these findings, the Agency issued a Preliminary Agency Audit Report (PAAR) letter setting out the overpayment amount of $64,453.74 and inviting Petitioner to submit additional documentation. Petitioner's additional documentation submittals were reviewed by the Agency. The post-PAAR review resulted in a reduction of overpayment to $52,850.82 as the total overpayment for all claims considered, and sought to be recovered from Petitioner by the Agency. The Agency's worksheets resulting in the $52,850.82 overpayment included: (1) the medical record review summary; (2) a spreadsheet setting out the names of the recipients, the dates of service, the procedure billed, the amount paid by the Agency, the amount allowed by the Agency, and the resulting overpayment; (3) the overpayment calculation using cluster sampling; (4) the patient worksheets, or claims; and (5) the procedure code summary of the claims in the universe, as defined in Section 409.913, Florida Statutes (2000). The formula used by the Agency is a valid statistical formula, the random sample used by the Agency was statistically significant, the cluster sample was random, and the algebraic formula and the statistical formula used by the Agency are valid formulas. The Agency's data and calculations were reviewed by Ian McKeague, Ph.D. (Dr. McKeague). He reproduced the calculations and concluded that $52,850.82 is the correct overpayment amount made by Medicaid to Petitioner. Petitioner produced neither written authority nor expert testimony contesting the validity of the statistical formula and Dr. McKeague's resulting calculation of overpayment. Nurse Stiver, with over 14 years employment with the Agency, worked with the Medicaid policies and handbooks. She worked with Mr. Tapining on the audit of Petitioner documents. Specifically, she reviewed Petitioner's records for compliance with Medicaid policy, to ensure that the services billed are the services Medicaid paid for and that those services met all aspects of Medicaid policy. Nurse Stiver's investigation and review revealed specific instances in which the paid claims show that the PAs and/or the ARNP, not Petitioner himself, provided the services to Medicaid patients. In each case where the Agency determined Petitioner was not entitled to payment, Nurse Stiver reviewed the medical records and determined that the ARNP or one of the PAs, who were not enrolled in the Medicaid program, actually rendered services to Medicaid recipients. Her determination was based upon her many years of nursing experience that the person rendering the services is the person who documents the services rendered. From her review, it appeared that the ARNP or a PA (not enrolled), not Petitioner, documented the service billed to and paid by Medicaid. Services rendered by an ARNP or a PA who is not enrolled as a provider in the Medicaid program cannot be compensated by the Medicaid program. Petitioner argued that he provided all Medicaid services billed to Medicaid and, on those rare occasions reviewed by Nurse Stiver, his employees (either the ARNP or the PAs), who by happenstance would be present in the treatment room, aided him by merely documenting services he himself rendered to the Medicaid patients. Petitioner presented an alternative argument that on other of those rare occasions reviewed by Nurse Stiver, his employees would be in the room when Petitioner actually provided services to Medicaid patients, and, while he was providing those services, he would simultaneously dictate to his employee who would transcribe his dictations on the Medicaid forms. Petitioner elected not to compel attendance by subpoena of his employees, even though the final hearing was continued to provide Petitioner an opportunity to do so. Petitioner's argument, that the proposed testimony by his employees would have been sufficient to challenge the Agency determination that Petitioner's billing was for services performed by a provider who was not enrolled in the Medicaid program, is without a foundation in fact and rejected. The Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook provides, in part, that "Records must be retained for a period of at least five years from the date of service." The handbook goes on to provide in pertinent part: PAs must meet the general Medicaid provider enrollment that are contained in Chapter 2 of the Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook, HFCA-1500 and Child Health Check- Up 221. In addition, PAs must follow the specific enrollment requirements that are listed in this section. * * * PAs must meet the provider requirements and qualification and their practice must be fully operational before they can be enrolled as Medicaid providers. * * * If a PA is employed by or contracts with a physician who can enroll as a Medicaid provider, the physician must enroll as a group provider and the PA must enroll as a treating provider within the group. * * * Services provided by a PA under the direct supervision of a physician may be billed using the physician's provider number instead of the PA's provider number. Direct physician supervision means the physician: (*) Is on the premises when the services are rendered, and (**) reviews, signs, and dates the medical record. * * * Medical records must state the necessity for and the extent of services provided. The following minimum requirements may vary according to the services rendered: * * * Note: See the service-specific Coverage and Limitations Handbook for record keeping requirements that are specific to a particular service. Providers who are not in compliance with the Medicaid documentation and record retention policies described in this chapter may be subject to administrative sanctions and recoupment of Medicaid Payments. Medicaid payments for services that lack required documentation or appropriate signatures will be recouped. Note: See Chapter 5 in this handbook for information on administrative sanctions and Medicaid payment recoupment. Petitioner, by signing a Medicaid provider agreement, agreed that all submissions for payment of claims for services will constitute a certification that the services were provided in accordance with local, state, and federal laws, as well as rules and regulations applicable to the Medicaid program, including the Medical Provider Handbooks issued by the Agency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, enter a final order requiring Petitioner, Mazhar G. Nawaz, M.D., to repay Respondent the principal amount of $52,850.82 plus interest as provided in Section 409.913, Florida Statutes (2002). DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 19th day of February, 2004.
Findings Of Fact The Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency) is the successor to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as the single state agency responsible for the administration of the Medicaid program in the State of Florida. The Agency is required to operate a program to oversee the activities of Medicaid providers and is authorized to seek recovery of Medicaid overpayments to providers pursuant to Section 409.913, Florida Statutes. The division of the Agency responsible for the oversight of Medicaid providers is referred to as Medicaid Program Integrity. On October 10, 1985, the Petitioner, Billy Beeks, M.D., (Provider) executed a Medicaid Provider Agreement which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The provider agrees to keep complete and accurate medical and fiscal records that fully justify and disclose the extent of the services rendered and billings made under the Medicaid program . . . . 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 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. Among the "manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program" referenced in paragraph 8 of the provider agreement was the Medicaid Physician Provider Handbook (hereinafter referred to as the "MPP Handbook"). Chapter 10 of the MPP Handbook addressed the subject of "provider participation." At the times pertinent to this proceeding Section 9 of Chapter 10 included the following: RECORD KEEPING You must retain physician records on services provided to each Medicaid recipient. You must also keep financial records. Keep the records for five (5) years from the date of service. Examples of the types of Medicaid records that must be retained are: Medicaid claim forms and any documents that are attached, treatment plans, prior authorization information, any third party claim information, x-rays, fiscal records, and copies of sterilization and hysterectomy consents. Medical records must contain the extent of services provided. The following is a list of minimum requirements: history, physical examination, chief complaint on each visit, diagnostic tests and results, diagnosis, a dated, signed physician order for each service rendered, treatment plan, including prescriptions for medications, supplies, scheduling frequency for follow-up or other services, signature of physician on each visit, date of service, anesthesia records, surgery records, copies of hospital and/or emergency records that fully disclose services, and referrals to other services. If time is a part of the procedure code prescription being billed, then duration of visit shown by begin time and end time must be included in the record. . Medicaid payments are based on billing codes and levels of services provided. In setting the appropriate billing to Medicaid, the level of service is determined pursuant to the MPP Handbook. At all times pertinent to this proceeding Section 1 of Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook included the following pertaining to "covered services and limitations": HCPCS CODES and ICD-9-CM CODES Procedure codes listed in Chapter 12 are HCPCS (Health Care Financing Administration Common Procedure Coding System) codes. These are based on the Physician's Current Procedural Terminology, Fourth Edition. Determine which procedure describes the service rendered and enter that code and description on your claim form. HCPCS codes described as "unlisted" are used when there is no procedure among those listed that describes the service rendered. Physician's Current Procedural Terminology, Fourth Edition, Copyright . . . by the American Medical Association (CPT-4) is a listing of descriptive terms and numeric identifying codes and modifiers for reporting medical services and procedures performed by physicians. The Health Care Financing Administration Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) includes CPT-4 descriptive terms and numeric identifying codes and modifiers for reporting medical services and procedures and other materials contained in CPT-4 which are copyrighted by the American Medical Association. The Diagnosis Codes to be used are found in the International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition, Clinical Modifications (ICD-9- CM). A diagnosis code is required on all physician claims. Use the most specific code available. Fourth and fifth digits are required when available. All billings pertinent to this proceedings are for patient office visits. Prior to amendments effective January 1, 1992, the MPP also provided in Section 1, Chapter 11, for six levels of service associated with the office visit procedure code. These levels of service, in ascending order of complexity, are "Minimal, "Brief", "Limited", "Intermediate", "Extended", and "Comprehensive". The least amount paid by Medicaid to a provider was for a "Minimal" level office visit. The level of payment immediately above the "Minimal" level were the "Brief" and "Limited" levels, which entitled a provider to the same payment. Immediately above the "Brief" and "Limited" levels, in ascending order of payment, were "Intermediate", "Extended", and "Comprehensive". Section 1, Chapter 11 of the MPP contained the following discussion of the six levels of service: There are six levels of service associated with the visit procedure codes. They require varying skills, effort, responsibility, and medical knowledge to complete the examination, evaluation, diagnosis, treatment and conference with the recipient about his illness or promotion of optimal health. These levels are: Minimal is a level of service supervised by a physician. Brief is a level of service pertaining to the evaluation and treatment of a condition requiring only an abbreviated history and exam. Limited is a level of service used to evaluate a circumscribed acute illness or to periodically reevaluate a problem including a history and examination, review of effectiveness of past medical management, the ordering and evaluation of appropriate diagnostic tests, the adjustments of therapeutic management as indicated and discussion of findings. Intermediate level of service pertains to the evaluation of a new or existing condition complicated with a new diagnostic or management problem, not necessarily related to the primary diagnosis, that necessitates the obtaining of pertinent history and physical or mental status findings, diagnostic tests and procedures, and ordering appropriate therapeutic management; or a formal patient, family or a hospital staff conference regarding the patient's medical management and progress. Extended level of service requires an unusual amount of effort or judgment including a detailed history, review of medical records, examination, and a formal conference with the patient, family, or staff; or a comparable medical diagnostic and/or therapeutic service. Comprehensive level of service provides for an in-depth evaluation of a patient with a new or existing problem requiring the development or complete reevaluation of medical data. This service includes the recording of a chief complaint, present illness, family history, past medical history, personal review, system review, complete physical examination, and ordering appropriate tests and procedures. Chapter 11 of the MPP was amended, effective January 1, 1992. Instead of the six levels of service for office visits, five levels of service, referred to as "evaluation and management" (E/M) service codes were adopted. The E/M levels of service levels ranged from Level 1 to Level 5 in ascending order of complexity and payment. 1/ Section 1, Chapter 11 of the MPP, as amended January 1, 1992, provides the following discussion as to the development of the E/M service codes: The American Medical Association, in cooperation with many other groups, replaced the old "visit" codes with the new "evaluation and management" (E/M) service codes in the 1992 CPT. This is a result of the Physician Payment Reform which requires the standardization of policies and billing practices nationwide to ensure equitable payment for all services. The new E/M codes are a totally new concept for identifying services in comparison to the old visit codes. They are more detailed and specific to the amount of work involved. Section 1, Chapter 11 of the MPP, as amended January 1, 1992, provides that the level of E/M codes are defined by the following seven components: Extent of History, Extent of Examination, and Complexity of Medical Decision- Making, Counseling, Coordination of Care, Nature of Presenting Problem, and time. 2/ After determining whether the office visit is for a new or established patient, Section 1, Chapter 11 of the MPP, as amended January 1, 1992, instructs the provider to determine the level of E/M services by taking into consideration the following three key components: Extent of History, Extent of Examination, and Complexity of Medical Decision-making. Section 1, Chapter 11 of the MPP, as amended January 1, 1992, provides the following discussion under the subheading "Extent of History": There are four types of history which are recognized: Problem Focused - chief complaint; brief history of present illness or problem. Expanded Problem Focused - chief complaint; brief history of present illness; problem pertinent system review. Detailed - chief complaint; extended history of present illness; extended system review; pertinent past, family and/or social history. Comprehensive - chief complaint; extended history of present illness; complete system review; complete past, family and social history. Section 1, Chapter 11 of the MPP, as amended January 1, 1992, provides the following discussion under the subheading "Extent of Examination": There are four types of examinations which are recognized: Problem Focused - an examination that is limited to the affected body area or organ system. Expanded Problem Focused - an examination of the affected body area or organ system and other symptomatic or related organ systems. Detailed - an extended examination of the affected body area(s) and other symptomatic or related organ system(s) Comprehensive - a complete single system speciality examination or a complete multisystem examination. Section 1, Chapter 11 of the MPP, as amended January 1, 1992, provides the following discussion under the subheading "Complexity of Medical Decision- Making": Medical decision-making refers to the complexity of establishing a diagnosis and/or selecting a management option as measured by the following factors: The number of possible diagnoses and/or the number of management options that must be considered. The amount and/or complexity of medical records, diagnostic tests, and/or other information that must be obtained, reviewed and analyzed. The risk of significant complications morbidity and/or mortality, as well as co- morbidities, associated with the patient's presenting problem(s), the diagnostic procedure(s) and/or the possible management options. There are four types of medical decision- making which are recognized: straightforward, low complexity, moderate complexity, and high complexity. 3/ Rule 10C-7.047, Florida Administrative Code, 4/ pertains to the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program (EPSDT), and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Purpose. EPSDT is a comprehensive, preventive health care program for Medicaid- eligible children under age 21 that is designed to identify and correct medical conditions before the conditions become serious and disabling. Medicaid provides payment for EPSDT which allows entry into a health care system, access to a medical home (sic) and preventive/well child care on a regular basis. This periodic medical screening includes a health and developmental history, an unclothed physical examination, nutritional assessment, developmental assessment, laboratory tests, immunizations, health education, dental, vision and hearing screens, and an automatic dental referral for children age 3 and over. A billing for an EPSDT screening is compensated by Medicaid at a rate that is higher than the rate for a Limited or Level 2 office visit. A provider must document all components of the EPSDT screening in order to be entitled to payment for the screening. If all components of the EPSDT screening are not documented by a provider's records, Medicaid compensates the provider for a Limited or Level 2 office visit since the provider would have made sufficient contact with the recipient to justify that billing level. When conducting an audit of a provider's billings to the Medicaid program, employees of Medicaid Program Integrity review the provider's medical records to determine whether the level of services billed are justified by the medical records. Medical records must contain sufficient documentation to substantiate that the recipient received necessary medical services at the level billed by the provider. A routine urinalysis performed during the course of an office visit should be billed as part of the office visit and not billed as a separate service. Vicki Divens, a registered nurse, is a consultant employed by the Agency and was administratively responsible for the audit of the Provider's medical records. She conducted this audit pursuant to the Agency's rules and policies. Ms. Divens obtained a report from Consultec, the Agency's fiscal agent, that provides identifying information as to all services that were billed to Medicaid by the Provider for the audit period of June 1, 1991, through May 30, 1993. This computer report reflects the date that each service was billed to Medicaid by the Provider, the name and Medicaid number of each recipient of the service, the codes which are used to describe the procedure of the service billed, the level of the service, the amount paid to the Provider, and the date of payment. For the audit period, there were a total of 1,712 Medicaid recipients who received services from the Provider, there were 9,054 separate billings for services to recipients, and there was a total of $259,305.01 paid by Medicaid to the Provider. The Agency is authorized 5/ to employ a statistical methodology to calculate the amount of overpayment due from a provider where there has been overstated billings. The methodology used by the Agency is a form of cluster sampling that is widely accepted and produces a result that is recognized as being statistically accurate. For the audit that is the subject of this proceeding, the Agency determined that 23 patient files would be the number of files necessary for the statistical analysis. The Agency established that sampling was adequate to perform the statistical analysis. The 23 recipients whose medical records would be analyzed were thereafter selected on a completely random basis. Ms. Divens obtained from the Provider the medical records for the 23 patients that had been randomly selected for analysis. A total of 141 separate billings had been made for these 23 recipients during the audit period and each of those billings had been paid to the Provider by the Medicaid program. The medical records for the 23 recipients were thereafter reviewed by Dr. John Sullenberger, the Florida Medicaid Program's Chief Medical Consultant, who made the determination as to whether the medical records in the sampling justified the level at which Medicaid had been billed for each of the services. Based on the overbillings found in the sampling, the Agency calculated an estimate of the overpayment for all Medicaid billings during the audit period by using a formula that is recognized as producing a statistically accurate result. When Dr. Sullenberger initially reviewed the Provider's medical records, several of the medical files for recipients in the sampling had not been located. Without these records to substantiate the billings for these patients, no credit was given for those services. The amount of the alleged overpayment for all recipients during the audit period was initially calculated to be $60,753.25, which is the amount claimed in the Agency's final audit report letter dated December 13, 1993. Thereafter additional records were furnished to the Agency by the Provider and the alleged overpayment was recalculated to be $50,852.86, which is the amount the Agency asserted as being the amount of the overpayment at the beginning of the formal hearing. 5/ The following findings are made as to the billings that were in dispute at the formal hearing. The date of birth is given for each recipient to help identify the recipient. For office visits before January 1, 1992, the level of services are described as being "Minimal," "Brief," "Limited," "Intermediate," "Extended," or "Comprehensive." For office visits after January 1, 1992, the level of services are described as being Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, or Level 5. Patient 1 was born January 22, 1989. There were four billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On November 19, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On April 29, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On August 7, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 4. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On August 21, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 4. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 2 was born September 29, 1985. There were five billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On August 31, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Extended level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On September 3, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On October 25, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Extended level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On February 7, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On October 26, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 3 was born May 9, 1985. There were two billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On May 22, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On January 20, 1993, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 4 was born March 20, 1968. There was one billing for this patient at issue in this proceeding. A. On July 25, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 5 was born April 28, 1988. There were three billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On August 30, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On October 14, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Intermediate level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On April 3, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 6 was born February 7, 1987. There was one billing for this patient at issue in this proceeding. A. On August 30, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 7 was born February 25, 1987. There were two billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On August 30, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient and he also billed for a urinalysis. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level and that the billing for the urinalysis should be included as part of the Limited level office visit. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 8 was born July 11, 1988. There were three billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On September 10, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level and he billed separately for an urinalysis for this patient during this visit. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Intermediate and that the urinalysis should be included in this billing. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On March 23, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 9 was born January 9, 1989. There were four billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On August 23, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Extended level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On October 15, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On April 20, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level Four. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level Two. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On April 21, 1993, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 4. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level Two. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 10 was born August 30, 1988. There were three billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On September 4, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited Level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On October 14, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited Level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On July 21, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Level Two. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 11 was born September 17, 1989. There were fifteen billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On June 3, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Extended level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On June 14, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On July 6, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Intermediate level. Dr. Leterman was of the opinion that the medical records justified the Intermediate level billing (Leterman deposition, page 30), but Dr. Sullenberger testified the billing should be at the Limited level (Transcript, page 171). This conflict is resolved by finding that the medical records justify this billing at the Intermediate level so that no adjustment is necessary. On July 15, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On July 20, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On August 5, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On August 20, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Extended level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On October 30, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On November 25, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Intermediate level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On December 27, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. (See, Leterman deposition, page 34) On January 28, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 4. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On February 25, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On July 7, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 3. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On December 9, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On May 3, 1993, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 3. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 12 was born July 12, 1970. There were four billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On January 3, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On January 13, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On February 3, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On March 10, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 13 was born August 22, 1990. There was one billing for this patient that was initially at issue in this proceeding. On August 22, 1990, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. When Dr. Sullenberger, the Agency's expert, initially reviewed the Provider's medical records pertaining to this billing, he thought that the billing should be reduced to a Limited level office visit. The amount of overpayment claimed by the Agency at the beginning of the formal hearing was based on this billing being at a Limited level. At the formal hearing, Dr. Sullenberger testified that on further consideration, he believed that the medical records justified this billing as an EPSDT, so that no adjustment was necessary. Based on his testimony, it is found the medical records maintained by the Provider justify this billing and no adjustment is necessary. Patient 14 was born October 23, 1990. There were nine billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On September 27, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Intermediate level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On October 11, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Extended level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On October 21, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Intermediate level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On December 17, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Extended level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On January 31, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 4. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On May 19, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On June 4, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On July 7, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On May 7, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 15 was born November 9, 1990. There was one billing for this patient at issue in this proceeding. A. On September 24, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 16 was born September 14, 1991. There were two billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On March 13, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 4. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On March 1, 1993, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 17 was born February 9, 1992. There were two billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On November 7, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On November 25, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. When Dr. Sullenberger, the Agency's expert, initially reviewed the Provider's medical records pertaining to this billing, he thought that the billing should be reduced to a Level 2 office visit. The amount of overpayment claimed by the Agency at the beginning of the formal hearing was based on this billing being at Level 2. At the formal hearing, Dr. Sullenberger testified that on further consideration, he believed that the medical records justified this billing at Level 3. Based on that testimony, it is found that this billing should have been at the Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 18 was born July 6, 1992. There were six billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On August 12, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On August 17, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and than this billing should have been at Level 4. 6/ The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On September 18, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On October 9, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and than this billing should have been at Level 3. 7/ The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On November 5, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On December 18, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Level 5. When Dr. Sullenberger, the Agency's expert, initially reviewed the Provider's medical records pertaining to this billing, he thought that the billing should be reduced to a Level 2 office visit. The amount of overpayment claimed by the Agency at the beginning of the formal hearing was based on this billing being at Level 2. At the formal hearing, Dr. Sullenberger testified that on further consideration, he believed that the medical records justified this billing at Level 3. Based on the testimony of Dr. Sullenberger and that of Dr. Leterman, it is found that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 19 was born June 12, 1989. There was one billing for this patient at issue in this proceeding. A. On February 9, 1993, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 20 was born May 18, 1987. There was one billing for this patient at issue in this proceeding. A. On July 27, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 21 was born April 27, 1988. There were four billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On January 12, 1993, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 4. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On February 17, 1993, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. March 8, 1993, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Level 4. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On April 16, 1993, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 22 was born August 10, 1992. There were three billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On December 28, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On February 9, 1993, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 4. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On February 22, 1993, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 4. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 23 was born May 23, 1993. There was one billing for this patient at issue in this proceeding. A. On May 26, 1993, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3 The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and that the Agency recalculate the total amount of the overpayment during the audit period based on the findings of fact contained herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 1995.
The Issue Whether Medicaid overpayments were made to Petitioner and, if so, what is the total amount of those overpayments. Whether Petitioner should be directed to submit to a "comprehensive follow-up review in six months."
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner Petitioner is owned by Yuval Levy, a Florida-licensed consultant pharmacist and registered pharmacist since 1990. Mr. Levy has served as Petitioner's president and chief executive officer since the "end of 1995." At all times material to the instant case, Petitioner has operated Colonial Drug (Pharmacy), a Florida-licensed closed system pharmacy located in Broward County, Florida. At all times material to the instant case, Petitioner acquired from pharmaceutical wholesalers licensed under Florida law all of the drugs dispensed through the Pharmacy. During the period from May 23, 1999, through February 23, 2001 (Audit Period), the Pharmacy filled approximately 180,000 prescriptions annually. A quarter of them (25 percent) were dispensed to Medicaid recipients. Petitioner's Participation in the Medicaid Program Petitioner was authorized during the Audit Period to provide pharmacy services to eligible Medicaid recipients in Florida. Petitioner provided such services pursuant to a Medicaid Provider Agreement (Provider Agreement). The Provider Agreement contained the following provisions, among others: The Provider agrees to participate in the Florida Medicaid program under the following terms and conditions: * * * Quality of Service. The provider agrees to provide medically necessary services or goods of not less than the scope and quality it provides to the general public. The provider agrees that services or goods billed to the Medicaid program must be medically necessary, of a quality comparable to those furnished by the provider's peers, and within the parameters permitted by the provider's license or certification. The provider further agrees to bill only for the services performed within the specialty or specialties designated in the provider application on file with the Agency. The services or goods must have been actually provided to eligible Medicaid recipients by the provider prior to submitting the claim. Compliance. The provider agrees to comply with all local, state and federal laws, rules, regulations, licensure laws, Medicaid bulletins, manuals, handbooks and Statements of Policy as they may be amended from time to time. Term and signatures. The parties agree that this is a voluntary agreement between the Agency and the provider, in which the provider agrees to furnish services or goods to Medicaid recipients. . . . Provider Responsibilities. The Medicaid provider shall: * * * (b) Keep and maintain in a systematic and orderly manner all medical and Medicaid related records as the Agency may require and as it determines necessary; make available for state and federal audits for five years, complete and accurate medical, business, and fiscal records that fully justify and disclose the extent of the goods and services rendered and billings made under the Medicaid. The provider agrees that only records made at the time the goods and services were provided will be admissible in evidence in any proceeding relating to the Medicaid program. * * * (d) Except as provided by law, the provider agrees to provide immediate access to authorized persons (included but not limited to state and federal employees, auditors and investigators) to all Medicaid-related information, which may be in the form of records, logs, documents, or computer files, and all other information pertaining to services or goods billed to the Medicaid program. This shall include access to all patient records and other provider information if the provider cannot easily separate records for Medicaid patients from other records. * * * (f) Within 90 days of receipt, refund any moneys received in error or in excess of the amount to which the provider is entitled from the Medicaid program. * * * (i) . . . . The provider shall be liable for all overpayments for any reason and pay interest at 12% per annum on any fine or repayment amount that remains unpaid 30 days from the date of any final order requiring payment to the Agency. * * * (l) If submitting claims to the Agency electronically, abide by the terms of the Standard Electronic Claims Submission Agreement. * * * Petitioner executed such a Standard Electronic Claims Submission Agreement (Submission Agreement), through which it expressed its understanding of and agreement to the following, among other things: * * * 3. Providers must correctly enter the claims data, monitor the data, and certify that the data entered is correct. * * * Providers must have on file the applicable source data to substantiate the claim submitted to the Medicaid program. Providers must allow the Agency or any of its designees . . . to review and copy all records, including source documents and data related to information entered through electronic claims submission. Providers must abide by all Federal and State statutes, rules, regulations, and manuals governing the Florida Medicaid program. Providers must sign and adhere to all conditions of the Medicaid Provider Agreement and be officially enrolled in the Medicaid program to participate in the electronic claims submission. Currently, and at all times material to the instant case, Petitioner "bill[ed] everything electronically." Prescribed Drug Services Coverage, Limitations and Reimbursement Handbook Among the requirements with which Petitioner, in paragraph 3 of the Provider Agreement and in paragraph 7 of the Submission Agreement, agreed to comply were those set forth in the Prescribed Drug Services Coverage, Limitations and Reimbursement Handbook (PDSCLR Handbook). During the Audit Period, Chapter 2 of the PDSCLR Handbook contained substantially the following "record keeping requirements" (with the underlined language reflecting additions to these requirements made effective July 20, 20002): Record Keeping Requirements The provider must retain all medical, fiscal, professional and business records on all services provided to a Medicaid recipient. Records may be kept on paper, magnetic material, film, or other media. In order to qualify as a basis for reimbursement, the records must be signed and dated at the time of service, or otherwise attested to as appropriate to the media. Rubber stamp signatures must be initialed. The records must be accessible, legible and comprehensible. Record Retention Records must be retained for a period of at least five years from the date of service. Types of Records That Must be Retained The following types of records, as appropriate for the type of service provided, must be retained (the list is not all inclusive): Medicaid claim forms and any documents that are attached; Professional records, such as patient treatment plans and patient records; Prior and past authorization, and service authorization information; Prescription records; Business records, such as accounting ledgers, financial statements, purchase/acquisition records, invoices, inventory records, check registers, canceled checks, sales records, etc.; Tax records, including purchase documentation; Patient counseling documentation; and Provider enrollment documentation. Requirements for Prescription Records The pharmacy must maintain a patient record for each recipient for whom new or refill prescriptions are dispensed. The record may be electronic. The pharmacy's patient record system must provide for the immediate retrieval of the information necessary for the pharmacist to identify previously dispensed drugs when dispensing a new or refill prescription. The patient record must contain the following information: The recipient's first and last name, address, date of birth, and gender; A list of all prescriptions that were obtained by the recipient at the pharmacy during the 12 months immediately preceding the most recent service that includes: the name of the drug or device, prescription number, strength of the drug, the quantity, date received, and the prescriber's full name and state license number; Any known allergies, drug reactions, idiosyncrasies, chronic conditions or disease states of the patient, and the identity of any over-the-counter drugs or devices currently being used by the patient that may relate to prospective drug use review; Any related health information indicated by a licensed health care practitioner; and The pharmacist's comments, if any, relevant to the patient's drug therapy. Right to Review Records Authorized state and federal agencies and their authorized representatives may audit or examine a provider's records. This includes all records that AHCA finds necessary to determine whether Medicaid payments were or are due. This requirement applies to the provider's records and records for which the provider is the custodian. The provider must give authorized state and federal agencies and their authorized representatives access to all Medicaid patient records and to other information that cannot be separated from Medicaid-related records. The provider must send, at his or her expense, legible copies of all Medicaid- related information to the authorized state and federal agencies and their authorized representatives. Incomplete Records Providers who are not in compliance with the Medicaid documentation and record retention policies described in this chapter may be subject to administrative sanctions and recoupment of Medicaid payments. Medicaid payments for services that lack required documentation or appropriate signatures will be recouped.[3] Note: See Chapter 5 in this handbook for information on administrative sanctions and Medicaid payment recoupment. During the Audit Period, Chapter 5 of the PDSCLR Handbook contained the following provisions, among others: Provider Abuse Abuse Abuse means provider practices that are inconsistent with generally accepted business or medical practices and that result in an unnecessary cost to the Medicaid program or in reimbursement for goods or services that are not medically necessary or that fail to meet professionally recognized standards for health care. Financial Abuse Financial abuse means abuse resulting in overpayments to providers. Overpayment Overpayment includes 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 claims, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse, or mistake. * * * Incomplete or Missing Records Incomplete records are records that lack documentation that all requirements or conditions for service provision have been met. Medicaid may recoup payment for services or goods when the provider has incomplete records or cannot locate the records. Note: See Chapter 2 in this handbook for Medicaid record keeping and retention requirements. During the Audit Period, other portions of the PDSCLR Handbook contained requirements regarding the information that providers, in preparing a claim for reimbursement, had to include, while elsewhere in the handbook other billing requirements, as well as billing prohibitions, were discussed. Florida Administrative Code Rule Provisions Additional requirements with which Petitioner, in paragraph 3 of its Provider Agreement and in paragraph 7 of the Submission Agreement, agreed to comply included those contained in the following provisions of the Florida Administrative Code governing the practice of pharmacy: Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16- 27.103 Only a Florida registered pharmacist or registered pharmacy intern acting under the direct personal supervision of a Florida registered pharmacist may, in the State of Florida, accept an oral prescription of any nature. Upon so accepting such oral prescription it must immediately be reduced to writing, and only a Florida registered pharmacist or registered pharmacy intern acting under the direct personal supervision of a Florida registered pharmacist may, in the State of Florida, prepare a copy of a prescription or read a prescription to any person for purposes of providing reference concerning treatment of the person or animal for whom the prescription was written, and when said copy is given a notation shall be made upon the prescription that a copy has been given, the date given, and to whom given. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16- 27.400 * * * (3) Only a Florida licensed pharmacist may make the final check of the completed prescription thereby assuming the complete responsibility for its preparation and accuracy. * * * Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16- 28.140 (1) Requirements for records maintained in a data processing system. * * * Original prescriptions, including prescriptions received as provided for in Rule 64B16-28.130, F.A.C., Transmission of Prescription Orders, shall be reduced to a hard copy if not received in written form. All original prescriptions shall be retained for a period of not less than two years from date of last filling. To the extent authorized by 21 C.F.R. Section 1304.04, a pharmacy may, in lieu of retaining the actual original prescriptions, use an electronic imaging recordkeeping system, provided such system is capable of capturing, storing, and reproducing the exact image of the prescription, including the reverse side of the prescription if necessary, and that such image be retained for a period of no less than two years from the date of last filling. Original prescriptions shall be maintained in a two or three file system as specified in 21 C.F.R. 1304.04(h). * * * (3) Records of dispensing. Each time a prescription drug order is filled or refilled, a record of such dispensing shall be entered into the data processing system. The data processing system shall have the capacity to produce a daily hard-copy printout of all original prescriptions dispensed and refilled. This hard copy printout shall contain the following information: Unique identification number of the prescription; Date of dispensing; Patient name; Prescribing practitioner's name; Name and strength of the drug product actually dispensed, if generic name, the brand name or manufacturer of drug dispensed; Quantity dispensed; Initials or an identification code of the dispensing pharmacist; and If not immediately retrievable via CRT display, the following shall also be included on the hard-copy printout: Patient's address; Prescribing practitioner's address; Practitioner's DEA registration number, if the prescription drug order is for a controlled substance; Quantity prescribed, if different from the quantity dispensed; Date of issuance of the prescription drug order, if different from the date of dispensing; and Total number of refills dispensed to date for that prescription drug order. The daily hard-copy printout shall be produced within 72 hours of the date on which the prescription drug orders were dispensed and shall be maintained in a separate file at the pharmacy. Records of controlled substances shall be readily retrievable from records of non-controlled substances. Each individual pharmacist who dispenses or refills a prescription drug order shall verify that the data indicated on the daily hard-copy printout is correct, by dating and signing such document in the same manner as signing a check or legal document (e.g., J. H. Smith, or John H. Smith) within seven days from the date of dispensing. In lieu of producing the printout described in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the pharmacy shall maintain a log book in which each individual pharmacist using the data processing system shall sign a statement each day, attesting to the fact that the information entered into the data processing system that day has been reviewed by him or her and is correct as entered. Such log book shall be maintained at the pharmacy employing such a system for a period of two years after the date of dispensing provided, however, that the data processing system can produce the hard-copy printout on demand by an authorized agent of the Department of Health. If no printer is available on site, the hard-copy printout shall be available within 48 hours with a certification by the individual providing the printout, which states that the printout is true and correct as of the date of entry and such information has not been altered, amended or modified. The prescription department manager and the permit holder are responsible for the proper maintenance of such records and responsible that such data processing system can produce the records outlined in this section and that such system is in compliance with this subsection. Failure to provide the records set out in this section, either on site or within 48 hours for whatever reason, constitutes failure to keep and maintain records. In the event that a pharmacy which uses a data processing system experiences system downtime, the following is applicable: An auxiliary procedure shall ensure that refills are authorized by the original prescription drug order and that the maximum number of refills has not been exceeded or that authorization from the prescribing practitioner has been obtained prior to dispensing a refill; and All of the appropriate data shall be retained for on-line data entry as soon as the system is available for use again. * * * (5) Authorization of additional refills. Practitioner authorization for additional refills of a prescription drug order shall be noted as follows: On the daily hard-copy printout; or Via the CRT display. The Audit and Aftermath Commencing on April 16, 2001, Heritage Information Systems, Inc. (Heritage), on behalf of AHCA, conducted an audit of Petitioner's paid Medicaid claims for the period from May 23, 1999, through February 23, 2001.4 Petitioner had submitted 37,416 such claims (Audit Period Claims), for which it had received payments totaling $2,797,964.36. The purpose of the audit was to determine whether, and if so to what extent, Petitioner was overpaid for these Audit Period Claims. Prior to the audit, Heritage provided Pharmacy personnel a Notice to Medicaid Provider of Initiation of On-Site Audit, which read as follows: The Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), under federal and state laws, has the responsibility to oversee the activities of Medicaid providers. This is to advise you that an on-site audit of your billings to the Medicaid program has been initiated. Audits are performed in order to determine if Medicaid billings conform to applicable laws, rules, and policies. The fact that an audit is performed carries with it no implication of any wrongdoing. Audits are conducted as part of the responsibility of Medicaid for ensuring the integrity of the program. Medicaid audits generally involve a review of provider medical, professional, financial, and business records as required to determine the propriety of billings. Attachment B is a summary of applicable laws and rules governing the access to required information. If additional information is desired, please notify the auditor named below. In conducting the audit, Heritage performed both a "prescription record review" and "purchase invoice analysis."5 For the "prescription record review," Heritage first selected a non-random, "judgmental sample" of 271 Audit Period Claims, for which Petitioner had received payments totaling $222,559.65. It then selected (from the remaining Audit Period Claims) a "random sample" of 250 claims,6 for which Petitioner had received payments totaling $18,250.05. Thereafter, Petitioner's records were examined to determine whether they contained documentation sufficient to support the claims in the "judgmental sample" and in the "random sample." Heritage's December 10, 2001, Final Report: In-Depth Audit (Final Heritage Report) contained an Executive Summary, which summarized what the audit had revealed to date. This Executive Summary read, in pertinent part, as follows: Heritage Information Systems, Inc. ("Heritage") conducted an in-depth audit of Colonial Drug ("Colonial") at the request of the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA"). The audit documented possible billing, policy and regulatory violations that resulted in apparent overpayments. The audit findings include the following: Auditors sampled 271 judgmental and 250 random prescription claims. A review of the judgmental sample documented $134,926.14 in overcharges. Findings from the random sample extrapolated to $1,568,499.62. The 95% one-sided lower confidence limit extrapolation is $1,189,026.15. Adding the judgmental sample findings to the 95% one- sided lower confidence limit for the extrapolated random sample findings totals $1,323,952.29. The discrepancies identified in the sample include the following: Pharmacy staff was unable to produce hard copy prescription records corresponding to 253 claims ("CF"). Fifteen (15) claims were billed for quantities greater than those ordered by the prescribers or dispensed to the patients ("OBQ"). Days supply amounts for nine (9) claims were billed incorrectly ("DS"). Nine (9) hard copy prescription records for controlled substances did not contain the prescribers' addresses ("NDAD"). Nine (9) hard copy prescriptions for controlled substances did not contain the prescribers' DEA numbers ("NDEA"). Seven (7) quantities were cut resulting in additional dispensing fees paid to the pharmacy ("CQ"). Seven (7) hard copy prescription records for controlled substances did not indicate the quantities of drug to be dispensed ("NQTY"). Two (2) prescription claims were billed for drugs that differed from those ordered by the prescriber (WDB"). * * * Heritage's audit documented apparent overcharges of $1,323,952.29. This figure represents a combination of non-extrapolated findings from the judgmental sample plus the 95% one-sided lower confidence limit for the extrapolated random sample findings. This report is submitted to AHCA for action deemed appropriate. Based on the information Heritage provided, AHCA preliminarily determined that Petitioner had been overpaid a total of $1,323,952.29 for the Audit Period Claims. By letter dated February 20, 2002, which it denominated its Provisional Agency Audit Report, AHCA advised Petitioner of this preliminary determination. AHCA's Provisional Agency Audit Report read, in pertinent part, as follows: An on-site audit of your pharmacy was initiated on April 16, 2001. The Florida Medicaid Program through the Agency for Health Care Administration has determined that you have been overpaid $1,323,952.29 in connection with claims submitted to Medicaid during the audit period(s). This conclusion is supported by the audit results. This review and the determination were made in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 409, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Chapter 59G, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). In applying for Medicaid reimbursement, providers are required to follow applicable statutes, rules, Medicaid provider handbooks, statements of Medicaid policy, and federal laws and regulations. Medicaid cannot properly pay for claims that do not meet Medicaid requirements. When a provider receives payment in violation of these provisions, those funds must be repaid. This is, however, a provisional finding and we encourage you to submit any additional information or documentation that you may have that you feel may serve to change the overpayment. REVIEW DETERMINATION The audit included a judgmental sample review of selected paid claims and a separate review of a statistical[ly] valid random sample taken from the remaining population of paid claims with dates of service during the audit period. The overpayment found in the random sample was extended to the population using generally accepted statistical formulas and methods. The audit period for this review was from May 23, 1999, through February 23, 2001. This review identified an overpayment of $1,323,952.29. Attached are the overpayment calculations, a summary of documented discrepancies, and an itemized listing of discrepancies noted in the review of the judgmental and random sample. * * * Accordingly, we have determined at this time that you have been overpaid by the Medicaid program in the amount of $1,323,952.29. If you have documentation that you wish to submit that you feel would alter these findings, submit your written explanation and legible copies of the organized documentation to us within 30 days of receipt of this notice. . . . If you concur or accept these findings, please send your check in the amount of $1,323,952.29 for the identified overpayment . . . . If you have not submitted a written explanation and documentation or made payment within 30 days, we will send you notice regarding the agency's final determination. * * * Petitioner subsequently furnished additional documentation to AHCA. On or about May 30, 2002, AHCA sent this additional documentation to Heritage for "review, placement in [Heritage's] file, and action deemed appropriate." By letter dated November 15, 2002, AHCA informed Petitioner of its opportunity "to submit [any] further documentation" it wanted AHCA to consider. The letter read, in pertinent part, as follows: An audit of your pharmacy was initiated on April 16, 2001. The Florida Medicaid Program, through the Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), issued a Provisional Agency Audit Report, dated February 20, 2002, and made a provisional overpayment determination. Subsequent to this determination, your pharmacy submitted additional documentation. However, the Agency extends to you an opportunity to submit further documentation that has not already been submitted that may change the overpayment. This review and determination were made in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 409, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Chapter 59G, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). In applying for Medicaid reimbursement, providers are required to follow the applicable statutes, rules, Medicaid provider handbooks, statements of Medicaid policy, and federal laws and regulations. Medicaid cannot properly pay for claims that do not meet Medicaid requirements. We encourage you to submit any additional information or documentation not already sent that you may have that you feel may serve to change the provisional overpayment. * * * Documentation standard for statistical audit review: Documents submitted after the completion of an audit may require an affidavit or other sworn statement, in addition to the documents, as a means to authenticate the documentation. Documentation that appears to be altered, or in any other way appears not to be authentic, will not serve to reduce the overpayment. Furthermore, additional documentation must clearly identify which discrepancy (claim) as set forth in the attached audit findings it purports to support. * * * Having reviewed the additional documentation that Petitioner had provided AHCA, Heritage prepared and submitted to AHCA an Addendum, dated May 13, 2003, to the Final Heritage Report it had previously submitted.7 The Addendum contained an Executive Summary, which stated the following, in pertinent part, regarding the "post audit review" conducted by Heritage: Post Audit Review/Revised Findings Post audit documentation from the pharmacy was forwarded to Heritage by AHCA and received on 1/3/03. Post audit documentation included copies of prescriptions and clinical records. The accepted documentation was incorporated into the audit findings and a revised overcharge amount was calculated. The revised judgmental sample review resulted in documented overcharges of $42,987.50. Revised findings from the random sample extrapolated to $701,790.88. The 95% one- sided lower confidence limit for this extrapolation is $484,189.15. Adding the judgmental sample findings to the 95% one- sided lower confidence limit of the random sample findings totals $527,176.65. Appended to the Addendum were, what Heritage referred to as, "discrepancy listings," accompanied by "edit sheets." The "discrepancy listings" specified those Audit Period Claims in the "judgmental sample" and in the "random sample" that were "discrepant" and, with respect to each such "discrepant" claim, identified, using the following "codes," the nature of the "discrepancy" from which the claim suffered and, in addition, set forth (in the "overcharges" column) the amount of any resulting overpayment: CF (Original hard copy prescription cannot be found on file during the audit)[8] CQ (A quantity less than that prescribed and less than that allowed, is billed and additional refills are dispensed resulting in undue dispensing fees)[9] DS (The days supply value submitted by the pharmacy is not consistent with the quantity and directions) DUP (Multiple claims for the same prescription fill are submitted and paid)[10] NDAD (The hard copy prescription does not include the prescriber's address)[11] NDEAC (The hard copy prescription does not contain a DEA number) NQTYC (The hard copy prescription does not indicate the quantity of drug to be dispensed) OBQ (Quantity paid exceeds the quantity authorized by the prescriber or dispensed to the recipient) UR (The number of refills billed and paid to the pharmacy exceeds the number authorized by the prescriber. Refills are dispensed without documented authorization from the prescriber) WDB (A pharmacy submits a claim for a medication that is different from the medication authorized to be dispensed to the patient)[12] WDBC (A pharmacy submits a claim for a medication that is different from the medication authorized to be dispensed to the patient, but with a showing of cause) WMDC (The claim for the prescription contains an incorrect prescriber license number, but the correct prescriber's name is documented in the pharmacy computer or is similar to the name of the prescriber billed)[13] WPB (The patient identified on a hard copy prescription is not the patient on the paid claim) These "discrepancy listings" are accurate as to all listed claims other than those denominated in Joint Exhibit 1 as "discrepant" claims 26 (August 9, 2000, fill), 52, 56, 61, 81, and 91. There were a total of 190 "discrepant" claims listed (including "discrepant" claims 26 (August 9, 2000, fill), 52, 56, 61, 81, and 91), some of which had "multiple discrepancies"14: 69 coded "CF"15 (with associated "overcharges" equal to the total amount paid for these claims); seven coded "CQ" (with associated "overcharges" equal to the undue "dispensing fees");16 11 coded "DS" (with no associated "overcharges"); four coded "DUP" (with associated "overcharges" equal to the total amount paid for these duplicate claims); nine coded "NDAD" (with no associated "overcharges"); 11 coded "NDEAC" (with associated "overcharges" equal to the "dispensing fees"); 8 coded "NQTYC" (with associated "overcharges" equal to the "dispensing fees"); 30 coded "OBQ" (with associated "overcharges" equal to the amount paid for the quantity in excess of that authorized); 16 coded "UR" (with associated "overcharges" equal to the total amount paid for these claims); one coded "WDB" (with an associated "overcharge" equal to the total amount paid for this claim); two coded "WDBC" (with associated "overcharges" equal to the "dispensing fees"); 59 coded "WMBC" (with associated overcharges " equal to the "dispensing fees"); and two coded "WPB" (with associated "overcharges" equal to the total amount paid for these claims). Of the 190 "discrepant" claims, 96 were in the "judgmental sample" and 94 were in the "random sample." On or about October 31, 2003, AHCA sent Petitioner a letter advising Petitioner of the status of AHCA's audit of the Audit Period Claims. The letter read, in pertinent part, as follows: The Agency for Health Care Administration, Office of Medicaid Program Integrity, with regard to the above-referenced audit, made a preliminary overpayment determination and sent a Preliminary Agency Audit Report to your attention. At this time, the Agency is temporarily placing this audit on hold, pending the outcome of litigation in an unrelated audit. Therefore, please maintain all of your Medicaid-related records and all documentation that supports the claims at issue in this matter until such time as this audit is finalized. Almost two years after having received Heritage's May 13, 2003, Addendum, AHCA prepared and sent to Petitioner its Final Agency Audit Report,17 which was dated April 8, 2005, and read, in pertinent part, as follows: The Agency for Health Care Administration, Office of Medicaid Integrity has completed the review of your Medicaid claims for the procedures specified below for dates of service during the period May 23, 1999, through February 23, 2001. A provisional agency audit report, dated February 20, 2002, was sent to you indicating that we had determined you were overpaid $1,323,952.29. Based upon a review of all documentation submitted, we have determined that you were overpaid $527,176.65 for services that in whole or in part are not covered by Medicaid. This report is not intended to imply any particular claim is or was covered. At a later date, the Agency may again review claims submitted during this period of time. Be advised that pursuant to Section 409.913(23)(a), Florida Statutes (F.S.), the Agency is entitled to recover all investigative, legal, and expert witness costs. Additionally pursuant to Section 409.913, F.S., this letter shall serve as notice of the following sanction(s): The provider is subject to a comprehensive follow-up review in six months. This review and the determinations of overpayment were made in accordance with the provisions of Section 409.913, F.S. In determining payment pursuant to Medicaid policy, the Medicaid program utilizes procedure codes, descriptions, policies, and the limitations and exclusions found in the Medicaid provider handbooks. In applying for Medicaid reimbursement, providers are required to follow the guidelines set forth in the applicable rules and Medicaid fee schedules, as promulgated in the Medicaid policy handbooks, billing bulletins, and the Medicaid provider agreement. Medicaid cannot pay for services that do not meet these guidelines. Below is a discussion of the particular guidelines related to our review of your claims and an explanation of why these claims do not meet Medicaid requirements. The audit work papers are attached, referencing the claims that were reviewed and found to be discrepant by this determination. REVIEW DETERMINATION(S) The audit included the review of a judgmental sample of selected claims and the review of a statistically valid random sample taken from the population of paid claims with dates of service during the audit period. The overpayment found in the random sample was extended to the population using generally accepted statistical formulas and methods. The audit period for this review was from May 23, 1999, through February 23, 2001. This review identified an overpayment of $527,176.65. Attached are the overpayment calculations, a summary of documented discrepancies, and an itemized listing of discrepancies noted in the review of the judgmental and the random sample[s]. * * * If you are not in bankruptcy and you concur with our findings, remit by check in the amount of $527,176.65. . . . * * * You have a right to request a formal or informal hearing pursuant to Section 120.569, F.S. . . . . [I]f a request for a hearing is made, the petition must be received by the Agency within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of this letter. . . . * * * As noted in the Preliminary Statement of this Recommended Order, Petitioner requested a "formal hearing," which ultimately was held on September 6 through 8, 2006. During the course of the hearing, AHCA made another downward revision in its total overpayment calculation (to $480,832.31), after determining that one "discrepant" claim in the "judgmental sample" ("discrepant" claim 26 (August 9, 2000, fill) previously coded "OBQ" should instead be coded "WMDC" (and that therefore the "overcharge" associated with this "discrepant" claim was $4.23, not $601.50), and further determining that five claims in the "random sample" ("discrepant" claims 52, 56, 61, 81, and 91) previously determined to be "discrepant" were in fact not "discrepant" (and that therefore Petitioner was not overpaid anything for these claims). Joint Exhibit 1 reflects this recalculation made by AHCA. The total amount that Petitioner was overpaid for the "discrepant" claims in the "judgmental sample" was $42,310.17. The total amount that Petitioner was overpaid for the 89 "discrepant" claims in the "random sample" was $4,339.32, or 17.36 dollars for each of the 250 claims in the sample. Extrapolating or projecting this result, in accordance with accepted statistical principles, to the entire universe of Audit Period Claims (which numbered 37,416) minus the 271 claims in the "judgmental sample" (a total of 37,145 claims), using a "95% one-sided lower confidence limit," yields an overpayment of $438,522.14. Adding this $438,522.14 overpayment to the $42,310.17 overpayment for the "discrepant" claims in the "judgmental sample" produces a total overpayment of $480,832.31 AHCA has made no additional revisions to its overpayment calculation in the instant case. It continues to maintain (and correctly so) that Petitioner received $480,832.31 in Medicaid overpayments for services claimed to have been provided during the Audit Period.18
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that AHCA enter a final order finding that Petitioner received $480,832.31 in Medicaid overpayments for paid claims covering the period from May 23, 1999, through February 23, 2001, and requiring Petitioner to repay this amount to AHCA; and that AHCA decline to order a "comprehensive follow- up review [of Petitioner] in six months." DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 2006.
The Issue Whether Petitioner failed to maintain required records to support and document Medicaid prescription claims paid by the Medicaid program for the audit period (June 24, 1998, to June 1, 2000). If so, whether Petitioner received overpayments from the Medicaid program. If so, whether extrapolation was appropriately used to determine the amount of that overpayment (alleged by Respondent to be $1,053,137.49).
Findings Of Fact PETITIONER At all times relevant to the allegations of this case, the Petitioner was licensed pursuant to Chapter 465, Florida Statutes, to provide pharmacy services in Florida with pharmacy license number PH0012223. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner was an authorized Medicaid provider with provider number 102126500. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner had a valid Medicaid Provider Agreement with Respondent. During the audit period, Petitioner provided pharmacy services to Medicaid recipients and billed those services to the Medicaid program under its Medicaid provider number. Specifically Petitioner sold or dispensed drugs to Medicaid recipients who resided in nursing homes. Petitioner operated solely to serve nursing home populations. Petitioner usually received pharmacy orders by telephone or facsimile transmission from a nursing home. Typically, the staff at Petitioner’s facility would take the call or receive the facsimile transmission, write down the pertinent information, enter the data into the pharmacy’s computer system, dispense the item, and route the drugs to the nursing home via courier. All drugs are dispensed in sealed containers and are delivered with a manifest listing all the medications by name and patient. Jerry Kelly, a pharmacist employed by Petitioner’s parent corporation, described how nursing home orders or prescriptions were obtained and taken, beginning on line 11, page 716, of Volume VI of the hearing transcript: The vast majority, probably 90, 95 percent, are faxed over from the nursing home by nurses. A few may be called in with the nurse acting under the regulatory authority to act as the agent of the physician. These orders are then reviewed by the pharmacist. An order issue technician will enter that information into the computer, creating the original prescription.[2] The pharmacist then checks that data that was entered into the prescription to make sure all elements are there and the order entry is correct. Labels are then printed, which go to the floor to be filled by technicians. The pharmacist then checks the final product. That product is sent to a staging area where delivery manifests are printed. Those orders are then checked off the delivery manifest to make sure that no orders have been missed. The tote is sealed and then delivered to a nursing home by courier service. At the nursing home, the nurse and the driver check these orders off together, both sign that delivery manifest, and a copy of that delivery manifest comes back to the pharmacy. Q. Can you explain to the Court the typical process at [Petitioner’s parent corporation] by which refills, so to speak, are received and handled. A. Back then refills were handled by pulling a label off of the prescription container, apply it to a refill order sheet or a piece of paper of any kind that would fax . . . those are faxed to the pharmacy, those labels are pulled and faxed to the pharmacy by a nurse acting again under the regulatory authority of a -- to act as the agent of the physician. That’s also verifying to us that those orders are continued for another month. The prescription number is put in by an order entry tech. Those labels are printed and filled. From there on, the process is exactly the same. Prior to the audit period, Petitioner was purchased by another corporation. Subsequent to the audit, Petitioner ceased to operate as a pharmacy. RESPONDENT Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility and authority to administer the Medicaid program in Florida. Respondent’s OMPI is responsible for overseeing the integrity of the Medicaid program in Florida. Pursuant to this authority Respondent’s OMPI oversees audits to assure compliance with the Medicaid provisions and provider agreements. These integrity audits are routinely performed and Medicaid providers are aware that they may be audited. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Medicaid program in Florida was governed by a “pay and chase” procedure. Under this procedure, Respondent paid Medicaid claims submitted by Medicaid providers and then, after- the-fact, OMPI audited such providers for accuracy and quality control. These integrity audits are to assure that the provider maintains records to support the paid claims. HERITAGE In 1999 OMPI contracted with Heritage through Consultec, L.L.C. (Medicaid’s fiscal agent), to perform and report pharmacy audits of pharmacy providers within the state. Auditors from Heritage were assigned Petitioner’s audit. The Heritage employees in charge of the subject audit were experienced and appropriately trained. THE AUDIT Respondent’s audit no 01-1017-00-3/H/JDJ reviewed Petitioner’s Medicaid claims paid by Respondent for the period June 24, 1998, through June 1, 2000. Ken Yon is the OMPI administrator who was responsible for managing the instant case and who worked with the Heritage auditors to assure the policies and practices of Respondent were met. In this case, the Heritage auditors presented at Petitioner’s facility unannounced on July 31, 2000 and sought 250 randomly selected claims for review. By limiting the number of claims, the auditors were not required to sift through the records of 139,036 claims (the total number of claims that the Petitioner submitted during the audit period). For the universe of 139,036 claims, 250 randomly selected claims is a reasonable sample to audit. The adequacy of the sample number as well as the manner in which it was generated is supported by the weight of credible evidence presented in this matter. Also, the results of extrapolating a sample of 250 claims to the universe of 139,036 claims would be statistically valid if the sampled claims were randomly chosen. The 250 sample claims selected for the subject audit were randomly chosen. Heritage asked the Petitioner to present prescription records it was required to retain to support the claims for the audit period. Petitioner offered the auditors its computerized records for many of the 250 samples in lieu of the hard copies the auditors requested. The auditors refused to accept the computerized records and, as reflected by the Audit Report, Petitioner was unable to produce acceptable evidence of prescriptions for a great many of the 250 samples.3 The auditors found that 171 of the 250 claims sampled were discrepant, in that they did not meet standards for payment. The auditors analyzed the number of discrepant claims and determined that the average overcharge per sampled claim was $36.3434 (sic). Multiplying the number of claims in the universe by that average yielded an initial estimate of the overcharge in the amount of $5,053,040.96. The 95% one-sided, lower-confidence limit4 for the initial estimate was determined to be $3,946.215.96, which is the amount of the overpayment alleged in the FAAR. THE FAAR AND SUBSEQUENT COMPUTATIONS After the auditors completed their review of the records at Petitioner’s facility, JoAnn Jackson, a licensed pharmacist with extensive experience in auditing pharmacies, was assigned by Respondent to review Heritage’s audit report and to prepare the Respondent’s FAAR. The vast majority of the discrepant claims (165 of the 171) were categorized as CF, which meant that the auditors could not find required documentation of the subject prescription or could not find required documentation for the refill of a prescription. These findings were reported to the Petitioner, who was given additional time to locate and produce documents to support the claims. Respondent was willing to accept documentation for claims up through the time of hearing.5 Based on additional documentation submitted by Petitioner after the auditors had completed their field work, Respondent’s staff recalculated the amount of the overpayment by the use of extrapolation (including the reduction of the initial estimate to the 95% one-sided, lower confidence limit) to be the amount of $1,053,137.49, which is the amount of the overpayment at issue at the formal hearing. Respondent established that each alleged discrepant claim that it used to recalculate the amount of the overpayment was, in fact, discrepant and did not meet Medicaid record-keeping standards. RECORD RETENTION REQUIREMENTS Although Petitioner’s manner of doing business was different from the conventional pharmacy (the so-called corner drugstore), it was subject to the same Medicaid records retention requirements as a conventional pharmacy that serves as a Medicaid provider. Pursuant to the applicable Medicaid Provider Agreement between Petitioner and Respondent, Petitioner was to comply with all Medicaid handbooks in effect during the audit period. Petitioner was also required to comply with all applicable state and federal Medicaid Program rules and laws in effect during the audit period. For each claim submitted during the audit period by Petitioner to Respondent for payment under the Medicaid Program, Petitioner was required to “keep, maintain, and make available in a systematic and orderly manner all medical and Medicaid- related records as Respondent requires for a period of at least five (5) years.” Petitioner was also required to make these supporting records available to Respondent upon Respondent’s request. A Medicaid provider must retain all medical, fiscal, professional, and business records on all services provided to a Medicaid recipient. In addition to the foregoing, a Medicaid provider must maintain a patient record for each recipient for whom new or refill prescriptions are dispensed. Specific to the issues of this case, a Medicaid provider must retain prescription records for five years from the date the prescription was last filled or refilled. For the audit period in this case, the prescription that authorized the dispensing of each drug for which Petitioner claimed payment under the Medicaid program should have been maintained and made available for the auditors since each prescription would have been within the five-year period. The records may be kept on paper, magnetic material, film, or other media. However, in order to qualify for reimbursement, the records must be signed and dated at the time of service, or otherwise attested to as appropriate to the media. Rubber stamp signatures must be initialed. The records must be accessible, legible and comprehensive. Applicable records that must be kept for quality control so that an after-the-fact audit can verify the integrity of the Medicaid claims that were paid by Respondent. Each claim reviewed and at issue in this cause was a paid Medicaid claim subject to the Petitioner’s provider agreement and the pertinent regulations. In order to stand as a sufficient prescription form, a writing must be created contemporaneous to the order (phone requests that are transcribed are acceptable), must contain specific information (type of drug, strength, dose, patient, doctor, DEA number, refill, etc.), and it must be kept for the requisite time. It would be acceptable for the prescription to be computer generated so long as it was written contemporaneous to the order and preserved as required by law. At the times relevant to this proceeding, Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-28.140(1)(d) and (e), provided, in part, as follows: Original prescriptions . . . shall be reduced to writing if not received in written form. All original prescriptions shall be retained for a period of not less than two years from date of last filling. To the extent authorized by 21 C.F.R. Section 1304.04, a pharmacy may, in lieu of retaining the actual original prescriptions, use an electronic imagining record keeping system, provided such system is capable of capturing, storing, and reproducing the exact image of the prescription, including the reverse side of the prescription if necessary, and that such image be retained for a period of no less than two years from the date of the last filling. Original prescriptions shall be maintained in a two or three file system as specified in 21 C.F.R. 1304.04(h). PETITIONER’S COMPUTERIZED RECORDS There was a dispute between the parties as to whether Petitioner’s computer records should have been accepted as evidence that valid prescriptions underlie each dispensed drug within the sample. That dispute is resolved by finding that the computer records maintained by the Petitioner did not retain prescriptions in the format dictated by rule. An electronic imaging recording system may be used when the system captures, stores, and can reproduce the exact image of the prescription, including the reverse side of the prescription if necessary. The Petitioner’s system did not do that. An electronic system must be able to produce a contemporaneous hard-copy printout of all original prescriptions dispensed and refilled. The original prescriptions must be maintained in a two or three file system as specified in 21 C.F.R. 1304.04(h). If the Petitioner’s system could do that, it did not. Fundamentally, a Medicaid claim for a drug that has been dispensed by a Medicaid provider must have as its basis a valid prescription. While Petitioner’s computer records established what drugs had been dispensed, those records did not meet the requirements for establishing that the drugs were dispensed pursuant to valid prescriptions. OVERPAYMENT Any Medicaid providers not in compliance with the Medicaid documentation and record retention policies may be subject to the recoupment of Medicaid payments. As set forth in the Conclusions of Law section of this Recommended Order, the term “overpayment” is defined by Section 409.913(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2000). EXTRAPOLATION At hearing, Petitioner continued to dispute the procedure of applying the audit sample overpayment to the population of claims to mathematically compute the overpayment for the audit period. Extensive testimony was taken as to the extrapolation process used in this proceeding. Respondent has used a statistical extrapolation method to compute overpayments for years. The statistical concept and process of applying a sample to a universe to mathematically compute an overpayment is not novel to this case. All testimony, including the testimony of Dr. Intriligator, has been fully considered in the findings reached in this case. The testimony of Dr. Mark Johnson, an expert in statistical sampling and analysis, has been deemed credible and persuasive as to the issues of the appropriateness of the sample (as to size and how it was generated), the use of the sample overpayment to calculate an overall payment, and the statistical trustworthiness of the amounts claimed in this case. The only way to determine the amount of the actual overpayment is to examine each of the 139,036 claims that were made during the audit period. Dr. Johnson’s testimony established that the probability is overwhelming that the amount of the alleged overpayment is substantially less than the actual overpayment. Respondent established that Petitioner received an overpayment during the audit period as alleged in the FAAR and it established that the amount of the overpayment is at least $1,053,137.49.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order that finds that Petitioner has received an overpayment from the Medicaid program in the amount of $1,053,137.49. It is further recommended that the final order require Petitioner to repay that overpayment. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th of February, 2006.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Sun States Services, Inc., a/k/a Always Care Nursing Service, received Medicaid overpayments that Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), is entitled to recoup, and whether a fine should be imposed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency responsible for administering the Medicaid program in Florida. The Medicaid program is a federal and state partnership to provide health care services to certain qualified individuals. From January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2008, Respondent was an enrolled Medicaid provider operating under provider number 6815065-96. Beginning in 2003, the State of Florida accepted Lynk Services, Inc. (Lynk), as a waiver support coordinator for Medicaid. Lynk was, at all times material to this matter, an enrolled waiver support coordinator for Medicaid. In January 2004, there were discussions between Lynk and Respondent about the possibility of Respondent providing Medicaid services to a Medicaid recipient identified as B.L. B.L. required insulin injections. In a letter dated January 16, 2004, Lynk's waiver support coordinator supervisor, Thomas Engelke, wrote the following to Respondent (addressed to "To Whom It May Concern"): [B.L.] is authorized to receive nursing services from [Respondent] at an accelerated rate of $6.65 per quarter hour. He is to receive 9 quarter hours for a total of $59.85 per visit. The Department of Children and Families has approved this rate on December 22, 2003 by Cindy Totten and Linda Schneider department liaisons. Per the Service Authorization form that was sent to you on December 22, 2003,[8/] you [Respondent] are to provide service to [B.L.] for the duration of his current support plan year. Should you have any further concerns or questions please contact Julie Buckner [B.L.'s] support coordinator. . . . (emphasis added). Later on January 22, 2004, Lynk and Respondent exchanged emails. The first email is from Howard Gruensfelder, Respondent's "VP," to Mr. Engelke and Julie Buckner, support coordinator of Lynk. It reads: I have a concern that billing 9 units says that the nurse is there for a full hour and forty five minutes administering his injection, when the nurse is not there for a full hour and forty five minutes. I want to make sure that we are not committing any type of fraud by doing this. This message is to confirm that the negotiated price for LPN insulin injections for [B.L.] is $59.85 per injection under the Skilled Waiver program. To do this, administratively we must bill nine units to achieve this price for service. You have waved [sic] the normal definition of unit (one quarter hour) for us in this case in order to end up with the agreed upon rate. According to your instructions we are to bill for nine units for each injection regardless of how much or how little time is required to complete the nursing service visit. Please confirm our understanding by replying to this message with an affirmative answer. Less than an hour later, Lynne Ballou, Lynk's president, sent the following response to Mr. Gruensfelder: Per the Service Authorization[9/] we sent to you 1/5/04 you can bill 9 quarter hours each visit. The negotiated rate was approved by the Department of Children and Families liaison and liaison's supervisor. Your company stated they needed this amount to provide the service. The actual time spent with the individual is no where [sic] near the 2 hours and 15 minutes that is being charged but the only way you can bill in the system is using the quarter hour. By DCF approving the 9 quarter hours a visit they are waiving the time requirement to be able to have the service provided to the client. Shortly after the letter and emails, Respondent began to provide medical services to B.L. During the audit period, Respondent provided skilled nursing services to B.L., submitted claims to AHCA for services allegedly provided to B.L., and received payment from AHCA on those claims. The claims identified in AHCA's Exhibit 9 represent claims submitted by Respondent for services to B.L. and paid by AHCA. Respondent billed $59.85 "per visit," regardless of the actual time spent by Respondent's employees providing the services. In all but 12 of the claims identified in AHCA's Exhibit 9, Respondent billed AHCA for nine units of service ($59.85), each unit of service representing 15 minutes of time. In the other 12 claims identified in AHCA's Exhibit 9, Respondent billed AHCA for 18 units of service and received a higher reimbursement. The nursing notes, contained in AHCA's Exhibit 15, reflect that Respondent did not spend two hours and 15 minutes performing the services for which it billed nine units of service, nor did it spend four hours and 30 minutes performing the services for which it billed 18 units of service. No evidence was offered or received to define the term "current support plan year." However, common sense dictates that without any other definition, the entities operated on a calendar year of January 1 to December 31 of each year.10/ Thus, the letter itself (AHCA's Exhibit 10, page 347) reflects that the 2004 current support plan year would have ended on December 31, 2004, six months prior to the audit period. AHCA conducted an audit of the claims submitted by Respondent between July 1, 2005, and December 31, 2008.11/ AHCA determined that Respondent was overpaid $16,518.60, which figure was later reduced by AHCA based on further review of the claims at issue. All communications regarding services to be provided to B.L. were between Respondent and Lynk. Respondent relied on the January 16, 2004, letter and subsequent email exchange as authorization to bill "per visit," rather than on an hourly basis. However, it is undisputed that the audit period was between July 1, 2005, through December 31, 2008. AHCA is responsible for conducting investigations and audits to determine possible fraud, abuse, overpayment, or neglect, and must report any findings of overpayment in audit reports. AHCA is not only authorized to conduct random audits; AHCA is required to conduct at least five percent of its audits on a random basis. In this instance, in February 2010, AHCA notified Respondent that it was in the process of reviewing claims billed to Medicaid between July 1, 2005, and December 31, 2008. The purpose of the audit was to verify that claims for which Respondent had already been paid by the Medicaid program were for services that were provided, billed, and documented in accordance with Medicaid statutes, rules, and provider handbooks. While Respondent certified with each claim submission that the claim was proper and that all records required to be maintained in support of each claim were in fact maintained, the audit goes behind that certification by actually reviewing those records. The medical records for B.L. were provided to AHCA for review. AHCA established the amount of overpayment for the claims. No evidence was offered of any additional "authorization letter" (to support a "flat fee" payment for services to B.L.) from AHCA, DCF, or Lynk for any period between July 1, 2005, and December 31, 2008. No credible evidence was offered that AHCA authorized that the Medicaid payment to Respondent would be by a flat "per visit" payment between July 1, 2005, and December 31, 2008.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration, enter a final order requiring Respondent, Sun States Services, Inc.: To repay the sum of $15,627.50 for overpayments on claims that did not comply with the requirements of Medicaid laws, rules, and provider handbooks; and To pay a fine of $1,000.00 for the violations of the requirements of Medicaid laws, rules, and provider handbooks. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 1st day of November, 2012.
The Issue Whether Medicaid overpayments were made to Petitioner and, if so, what is the total amount of these overpayments.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the stipulations of fact set forth in the parties' March 5, 2002, Joint Prehearing Stipulation: Petitioner Petitioner was incorporated in 1989 by Mr. Taylor. It operated Choice Pharmacy, a pharmacy located at 9920 Northwest 27th Avenue in Miami, Florida, from around the time of its incorporation until approximately 1999. The Provider Agreement During the period from September 10, 1997, through August 31, 1998, Petitioner was authorized to provide pharmacy services and goods to eligible Medicaid recipients in Florida. Petitioner provided such services and goods pursuant to a Medicaid Provider Agreement Mr. Taylor had signed, on behalf of Petitioner, on February 21, 1997. The Provider Agreement contained the following provisions, among others: The Provider agrees to participate in the Florida Medicaid program under the following terms and conditions: * * * Quality of Service. . . . The services or goods must have been actually provided to eligible Medicaid recipients by the provider prior to submitting the claim. Compliance. The provider agrees to comply with all local, state and federal laws, rules, regulations, licensure laws, Medicaid bulletins, manuals, handbooks and Statements or Policy as they may be amended from time to time. Term and signatures. The parties agree that this is a voluntary agreement between the Agency and the provider, in which the provider agrees to furnish services or goods to Medicaid recipients. This provider agreement shall become effective the date the provider's Florida Medicaid Enrollment Application is received by the state or its fiscal agent. It shall remain in effect until July 1, 1999, unless otherwise terminated. . . . Provider Responsibilities. The Medicaid provider shall: * * * (b) Keep and maintain in a systematic and orderly manner all medical and Medicaid related records as the Agency may require and as it determines necessary; make available for state and federal audits for five years, complete and accurate medical, business, and fiscal records that fully justify and disclose the extent of the goods and services rendered and billings made under the Medicaid. The provider agrees that only records made at the time the goods and services were provided will be admissible in evidence in any proceeding relating to the Medicaid program. * * * (d) Except as provided by law, the provider agrees to provide immediate access to authorized persons (included but not limited to state and federal employees, auditors and investigators) to all Medicaid-related information, which may be in the form of records, logs, documents, or computer files, and all other information pertaining to services or goods billed to the Medicaid program. This shall include access to all patient records and other provider information if the provider cannot easily separate records for Medicaid patients from other records. . . . Prescribed Drug Services Coverage, Limitations and Reimbursement Handbook, and the Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook The Prescribed Drug Services Coverage, Limitations and Reimbursement Handbook (referenced in the "Facts Not in Dispute" section of the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation) at all times material to the instant case contained the following "record keeping " provisions, among others: The provider must retain all medical, fiscal, professional and business records on all services provided to a Medicaid recipient. Records may be kept on paper, magnetic material, film, or other media. In order to qualify as a basis for reimbursement, the records must be signed and dated at the time of service, or otherwise attested to as appropriate to the media. Rubber stamp signatures must be initialed. The records must be accessible, legible and comprehensible. Records must be retained for a period of at least five years from the date of service. The following types of records, as appropriate for the type of service provided, must be retained (the list is not all inclusive): . . . . Business records, such as accounting ledgers, financial statements, purchase/acquisition records, invoices, inventory records, check registers, canceled checks, sales records, etc.; Tax records, including purchase documentation; . . . . Providers who are not in compliance with the Medicaid documentation and record retention policies described in this chapter may be subject to administrative sanctions and recoupment of Medicaid payments. Medicaid payments for services that lack required documentation or appropriate signatures will be recouped. . . . The Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook (referenced in the "Facts Not in Dispute" section of the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation) at all times material to the instant case contained similar provisions. The Prescribed Drug Services Coverage, Limitations and Reimbursement Handbook (referenced in the "Facts Not in Dispute" section of the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation) at all times material to the instant case further provided that "[r]eimbursement for prescribed drug services is based on the cost of the drug to the pharmacy plus a dispensing fee." The Audit and Aftermath In July of 1998, AHCA's Medicaid fiscal agent contractor (Unysis Corporation) conducted a "desk audit" of Medicaid claims submitted by Petitioner. Following the completion of the "desk audit," the matter was referred to AHCA's Office of Medicaid Program Integrity to conduct "a more in depth" audit (involving an examination of invoices and other documentation to determine whether Petitioner had available during the period under review sufficient quantities of goods to support its billings to the Medicaid program). The audit, which covered the period from September 10, 1997, through August 31, 1998 (Audit Period), was conducted by Kathryn Holland, with the assistance of an accounting firm retained by AHCA, Krause, Humphress, Pace & Wadsworth, CPA (Krause). Ms. Holland is a Florida-registered pharmacist who has been a senior pharmacist with AHCA for the past 12 years. She has no formal education or training in accounting, but does have 12 years of experience "doing the kind of audits" she conducted in the instant case. In an effort to obtain information needed for the audit, Krause requested that Petitioner fill out and return a Questionnaire for Medicaid Providers. The questionnaire was filled out and returned by Mr. Taylor, on behalf of Petitioner, on or about October 30, 1998. Mr. Taylor indicated on the questionnaire that, during the Audit Period, the "percentage of [Petitioner's] prescription business that [was] Medicaid" was approximately 90 percent. He further indicated on the questionnaire that Petitioner's "total dollar sales volume of prescription drugs" during the Audit Period was $5,732,028.84; Petitioner's "cost of prescription drugs sold during [the] Audit Period" was $5,220,200.27; Petitioner's "prescription drug inventory at cost, [at the] beginning of [the Audit] Period" was $180,721.00; and Petitioner's "prescription drug inventory at cost, [at the] end of [the Audit] Period" was $306,081.00. The questionnaire requested the name(s) of Petitioner's "major drug suppliers during the review period." All suppliers that "provided more than 10% of [Petitioner's] drug purchases" were to be listed. Mr. Taylor listed on the questionnaire the following "major drug suppliers": "McKesson Inc.," "Quality Medical," "Pharma Plus Wholesale Inc.," and "Quest Medical Supply." IV Pharmaceutical Wholesalers, Inc., was not among the "major drug suppliers" named by Mr. Taylor. According to the information provided on the questionnaire by Mr. Taylor, the purchases made by Petitioner from "McKesson Inc.," "Quality Medical," "Pharma Plus Wholesale Inc.," and "Quest Medical Supply" represented approximately 20 percent, 20 percent, 40 percent, and 10 percent, respectively, of Petitioner's "total [drug] purchases" during the Audit Period. By letter dated November 9, 1998, Krause requested Pharma Plus Wholesale, Inc. (Pharma Plus) to provide it "with a download of all transactions (all accounts) for the period September 1, 1997 through August 31, 1998," between Pharma Plus and Choice Pharmacy. Pharma Plus, in a letter dated January 18, 1999, provided the following response to Krause's request: [A]s per our conversation I am submitting this document to formally inform you and your office that Pharma Plus Wholesale, Inc. has never done any business with Choice Pharmacy (Legal Name: OKAN, Inc) 9920 N.W. 27th Avenue Miami, FL 33147.) By letter dated January 20, 1999, Ms. Holland requested McKesson Drug Company (McKesson) to provide her "with a download of all transactions for the period July 1, 1997, through August 31, 1998" between McKesson and Choice Pharmacy. On February 16, 1999, McKesson provided Ms. Holland with a "paper printout" containing the requested information. The material submitted by McKesson revealed that there were a considerable number of transactions between McKesson and Choice Pharmacy during the period in question. On April 2, 1999, Ms. Holland sent a letter to Mr. Taylor, which read, in part, as follows:: On or around July 16, 1998, an auditor from Unisys Corporation, the fiscal agent contractor for the Florida Medicaid program, conducted an audit of your pharmacy department. The audit is being reviewed by Medicaid Program Integrity. In order for us to complete our review, we are requesting and must receive the following: Documentation that identifies all purchases/acquisitions by Choice Pharmacy for the products listed on "Attachment A" for the period from July 1, 1997, through August 31, 1998. Documentation that identifies all credits/returns for the period stated above for the products listed on "Attachment A." . . . You have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to submit the requested information. . . . The "products" listed on "Attachment A" did not include "every single drug Petitioner had billed to Medicaid. Only the 50 "highest paid" drugs were listed on "Attachment A." Mr. Taylor responded to Ms. Holland's letter by providing her with, on May 13, 1999, a three-inch stack of documents reflecting transactions between Petitioner and "quite a few different [drug] wholesalers." Ms. Holland attempted (successfully in some instances and unsuccessfully in others) to contact wholesalers whose names appeared on the documentation provided by Mr. Taylor to obtain from them documentation regarding their transactions with Petitioner. After analyzing the documentation with which she had been provided by Petitioner and by the drug wholesalers she had been able to contact, and examining AHCA's records of the claims filed by Petitioner during the Audit Period, Ms. Holland determined that there was insufficient documentation to demonstrate that, during the Audit Period, Petitioner had available sufficient inventory to support $4,248,262.37 of its billings to the Medicaid program. By letter dated July 28, 1999, Ms. Holland advised Mr. Taylor of this "provisional finding." The letter read, in part, as follows: Medicaid Program Integrity has reviewed your paid Medicaid claims with dates of service from September 10, 1997, through August 31, 1998. We have also reviewed your product purchase/acquisition documentation received on May 13, 1999. Some of the purchase/acquisition documents that you furnished could not be substantiated by the distributor/wholesaler and were therefore not included in the review. 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. Based on this review, we have made a provisional determination that you were overpaid $4,248,262.37 for claims that in whole or in part are not covered by Medicaid. The amount due for the overpayment is $4,248,262.37. This is, however, a provisional finding and we encourage you to submit any additional information or documentation that you may have that you feel may serve to change the overpayment. * * * Based on the above, we have reason to believe that you have been overpaid by the Medicaid program. The overpayment identified in the summary sheet attachment is with regard only to the 45 drugs listed and comprehends only the period audited, namely September 10, 1997, through August 31, 1998. A printout identifying all relevant claims involved in the overpayment and a copy of the drug purchase/acquisitions are attached. The overpayment calculation is based upon the assumption that all stock demonstrated as available during the audit period was exclusively dispensed to Medicaid recipients; this is undoubtedly not the case and the assumption serves to reduce the amount of the overpayment. 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. Accordingly, as shown in the summary sheet attachment, we have determined at this time that you have been overpaid by the Medicaid program in the amount of $4,248,262.37. If additional overpayments are found subsequently, you will be notified. * * * If you have any additional invoices or other relevant documentation that you wish to submit that you feel would alter these findings, please submit your written explanation and legible copies of the documentation to us immediately. . . . If you have not submitted documentation or made payment within 30 days, we will send you notice regarding the agency's final determination, taking into consideration any information or documentation that you submit within this time period. On August 16, 1999, Mr. Diamond, on behalf of Petitioner, telephonically requested a 21-day extension of time to submit additional documentation for Ms. Holland's consideration. By letter dated August 17, 1999, Ms. Holland advised Mr. Diamond that the requested extension of time had been granted. Mr. Diamond, on behalf of Petitioner, on September 14, 1999, provided Ms. Holland with an "additional package of documentation." Ms. Holland reviewed these documents. "Most everything in this package was a duplicate" of documents that Ms. Holland had already been provided by Mr. Taylor. The following day, Ms. Holland, by facsimile transmission, requested Mr. Diamond to provide her with cancelled checks evidencing Petitioner's payment of eight, specified invoices included in the "additional package of documentation" she had received from Mr. Diamond. Mr. Diamond provided Ms. Holland with five cancelled checks on October 8, 1999. Ms. Holland determined, in light of the additional documentation she had received following her "provisional finding" that Petitioner had been overpaid $4,248,262.37 by the Medicaid program, that the amount of that overpayment should be reduced by $764.67. She advised Mr. Taylor of this "final agency audit" determination, by letter dated October 27, 1999, which read, in part, as follows: Medicaid Program Integrity has completed a review of your paid Medicaid claims with dates of service from September 10, 1997, through August 31, 1998. We have also reviewed your product purchase/acquisition documentation received on May 13, 1999, September 14, 1999, and October 8, 1999. 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. You are hereby notified that Okan, Inc. d/b/a Choice Pharmacy was overpaid $4,247,497.70 for claims that in whole or in part are not covered by Medicaid. The total amount due for the overpayment is $4,247,497.70. The above action and your right or appeal are discussed below. * * * We have required that you submit invoices from your suppliers to substantiate the availability of drugs that you billed to Medicaid. You have not fully substantiated such availability. Section 409.913(10), F.S., states in part that the Agency may require repayment for inappropriate, medically unnecessary, or excessive goods or services. Section 409.913(14)(n), F.S., states that "The agency may seek any remedy provided by law, including but not limited to, the remedies provided in subsection (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." Billing Medicaid for drugs that have not been demonstrated as available for dispensing is a violation of Medicaid laws and regulations and has resulted in the finding that you been overpaid by the Medicaid program. The overpayment identified in the summary sheet attachment is with regard only to the 45 drugs listed and comprehends only the period audited, namely September 10, 1997, through August 31, 1998. A printout identifying all relevant claims involved in the overpayment and a copy of the drug purchase/acquisition review are attached. The overpayment calculation is based upon the assumption that all stock demonstrated as available during the audit period was exclusively dispensed to Medicaid recipients; this is undoubtedly not the case and the assumption serves to reduce the amount of the calculated overpayment. All Medicaid payments sufficient to cover documented inventory have been assumed to be valid, and payments in excess of that amount are regarded to be invalid. Accordingly, as shown in the summary sheet attachment, we have determined at this time that you have been overpaid by the Medicaid program in the amount of $4,247,497.70. If additional overpayments are found subsequently, you will be notified. * * * If you accept or concur with these finding, please send your check in the amount of $4,247,497.70, made payable to the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, to: . . . . You have the right to request a formal or informal hearing pursuant to section 120.569, F.S. . . . [I]f a request for a hearing is made, the request or petition must be received within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of this letter. Failure to timely request a hearing shall be deemed a waiver of your right to a hearing. . . . Mr. Diamond, on behalf of Petitioner, filed with AHCA a Petition for Formal Hearing on December 7, 1999. The Petition for Formal Hearing was accompanied by 50 "invoices" purporting to reflect sales of prescription drugs (totaling approximately $4 million dollars) made by IV Pharmaceutical Wholesalers, Inc., to Choice Pharmacy during the Audit Period, as well as the following cover letter from Mr. Diamond to Ms. Holland: Consistent with our prior discussions regarding our above referenced client, you will find enclosed the final documentation from [IV] Pharmaceutical Wholesalers, Inc. As I indicated in our prior discussions it would appear at this time that our independent audit has concluded. Our accounting reveals, based on all invoices provided, our above referenced client has correctly accounted for all medications billed through Medicaid. I also enclose consistent with our prior discussion a copy of our request for a formal hearing in the event that you are not in agreement with our conclusions. In the event that you are satisfied with the conclusions, please advise Mr. John A. Owens, Chief, Medicaid Program Integrity, that we will withdraw our request for formal hearing. Prior to the submission of these "invoices," AHCA had not received any information (in the form of documentation or otherwise) indicating that Petitioner had purchased or otherwise acquired drugs from IV Pharmaceutical Wholesalers, Inc. Ms. Holland examined the "invoices." "They did not look like forms [she had] seen from this wholesaler before, and . . . after years of looking at invoices they just appeared not right" to her. On January 28, 2000, Ms. Holland sent the following letter to Mr. Diamond: Thank you for the documents received on December 7, 1999. As they were received after the Final Agency Action, the Agency will consider them as possible evidence for trial or hearing. Once the hearing date and discovery schedule are set, we will propound interrogatories and take depositions in conjunction with these documents. If you have any question, please contact Mr. L. William Porter, II, senior attorney . . . . Ms. Holland's suspicions regarding the genuineness of the IV Pharmaceutical Wholesalers, Inc., "invoices" submitted by Petitioner were correct. Petitioner had never purchased or otherwise acquired any drugs from IV Pharmaceutical Wholesalers, Inc. The "invoices" were fabricated. They were created by Mr. Pinkoff, for a fee ($800,000.18, which he was paid, in two installments, in November of 1999), at the request of Mr. Taylor and a Betty Bills. 13/ Mr. Pinkoff was told that the "invoices" were needed for an audit to "substantiate the purchases of [certain] product[s]." 14/ Mr. Pinkoff was subsequently charged with criminal wrongdoing for his participation in this fraudulent scheme and "voluntarily surrendered" to the authorities. 15/ The charges were filed after Mr. Pinkoff's place of business had been searched by law enforcement authorities on December 1, 1999, pursuant to a search warrant obtained by the Florida Attorney General's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, which was conducting a criminal investigation of another matter unrelated to Choice Pharmacy. 16/ The computer that Mr. Pinkoff used to create the falsified "invoices" for Petitioner was seized during the search. Mr. Pinkoff entered into a Plea Agreement with the State of Florida in his criminal case. The Plea Agreement was filed in Leon County Circuit Court (Case No. 2000-4310) on November 8, 2000. Section II of the Plea Agreement contained the "Factual Predicate for this Plea Agreement." It provided as follows: The Defendant and the State agree that the following is the factual basis for the entry of plea in this matter, (hereafter "SUBJECT MATTER"): In June of 1999, the Defendant was approached by Louis A. Petrillo ("Petrillo"),[17/] who told the Defendant that Choice Pharmacy (Okan, Inc. d/b/a Choice Pharmacy ("Choice") and "Betty," an owner, needed certain invoices. Specifically, Choice and Betty needed to demonstrate that Choice had purchased a number of prescription drugs with a value of $4,000,000 dollars dating back to the period of 1997 through 1998. Choice was owned and operated by Raufu ("Ralph") Taylor and Betty (Last Name Unknown). The Defendant owned a 1/2 interest in IV Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Florida corporation that was a licensed prescription drug wholesale company. IV Pharmaceuticals had not sold any prescription drugs to Choice in 1997 or at any other time. Petrillo knew this fact but asked the Defendant if he could produce invoices for a specific list of drugs; the understanding was that the invoices would be false. The Defendant told Petrillo, Betty and Ralph that he could create or otherwise produce invoices from IV Pharmaceutical[s] to give to Choice for prescription drugs that IV Pharmaceutical[s], Inc. had previously purchased from manufacturers or other licensed wholesalers. This was necessary in case IV Pharmaceutical[s] was asked to produce its records to substantiate the invoices from IV Pharmaceutical[s] to Choice. All of the drugs Betty and Ralph requested invoices for were oncology or HIV prescription drugs, largely Neup[o]g[e]n and Procrit. IV Pharmaceutical[s] had invoices to substantiate its own purchases of those drugs. A meeting was arranged by Petrillo. In attendance were the Defendant, Petrillo, Betty, and Ralph. After making introductions, Petrillo left the meeting.[18/] Before leaving, Petrillo told the Defendant that it was up to him whether or not to create the invoices. The Defendant discussed with Betty and Ralph what specific prescription drug invoices were required. Betty and Ralph provided the Defendant with a list of drugs, including dates of purchase and quantities. The Defendant believed that the invoices were to be used for some unlawful purpose, presumably involving AHCA, since the Defendant was familiar with the AHCA audit process and knew that AHCA required such invoices when conducting an audit. Betty and Ralph told the Defendant that the invoices were needed for drugs they had actually purchased but had no invoices for. The Defendant had at least one conversation with Petrillo related to the production following the meeting. Six months after the meeting, the Defendant drafted invoices under the IV Parmaceutical[s] name based upon the list provided by Betty and Ralph. The Defendant gave the invoices to Petrillo to give to Betty and Ralph. Each false invoice produced by Defendant was submitted to AHCA. The foregoing assertions of fact made in this section of the Plea Agreement are true and accurate. Section III of the Plea Agreement indicated that Pinkoff understood that "pursuant to this plea agreement his minimum potential exposure under the Sentencing Guidelines [was] 55.5 months of imprisonment" and "[h]is maximum potential exposure under the Sentencing Guidelines [was] the statutory maximum of thirty-five years in State Prison and a $25,000.00 fine." Section IV of the Plea Agreement set forth the "Defendant's Obligations." It read as follows: The Defendant agrees to plead Guilty to the following charges contained in the information filed in the above-styled criminal case: one count of "Racketeering activity" in violation of Florida Statutes, Section 895.03(3), a first degree felony; and one count of Medicaid Provider Fraud in violation of Florida Statutes, Section 409.920(2)(a), a third degree felony. The Defendant agrees to make himself accessible upon notice to receive and testify truthfully pursuant to any subpoena lawfully issued compelling such testimony pursuant to §914.04, Florida Statutes, However, by this AGREEMENT Defendant does not and shall not waive his Fifth Amendment privilege as to any statement or testimony except and only as to the specific facts set forth as the SUBJECT MATTER of this AGREEMENT; Defendant shall maintain his Fifth Amendment rights as to all other allegations of facts, including those facts related to the charges alleged in the Information not included in the factual predicate herein. The Defendant understands that if lawfully compelled to provide testimony, any perjury committed by him would constitute a violation of the ordinary terms and conditions of Defendant's community control and probation even if related to the charges alleged in the Information. Section V of the Pleas Agreement contained the "sentence the State will recommend," which was as follows: Seven (7) years of probation with the following special conditions: Defendant with will serve 24 months of community control under the terms and conditions set by the Department of Corrections. . . . Defendant shall pay a total of $3,475,000 to the State of Florida as compensation to the State of Florida for its losses, both known and unknown. Such reimbursement shall not be deemed or otherwise construed as a fine or similar penalty. . . . At the entry of this plea, Defendant agrees to provide the State of Florida with sufficient security to guarantee the payment of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00). This security shall be in the form of two Notes secured by two mortgages to be held by the State of two properties. The first property is located at 5721 Oakview Terrace, Hollywood, Florida. The Note on this property shall be in the amount of $400,000.00. The second property secured by a Note is located at 6001 North Ocean Drive, PHS, Hollywood, Florida [and the note on this property] shall be in the amount of $600,000.00.[19/] . . . Defendant shall pay a fine in the amount of $25,000.00 which is the Statutory maximum; Defendant shall be Adjudicated Guilty on all counts; Defendant shall be precluded from working or having a business interest in or receiving remuneration or payment of any kind from any health care related facility that receives any funds or participates in any way with the Medicare and/or Medicaid programs under Titles XVIII and XIX of the United States Code. However, this does not preclude the Defendant from receiving proceeds from the divestment of his interests or assets through the sale or transfer of said assets or interest to an entity that receives any funds or participates in any way with the Medicare and/or Medicaid programs of the United States. Defendant shall pay court costs; The monetary obligation under the AGREEMENT shall be paid over the course of probation and community control. However, the STATE and the Defendant agree that there is a value to the STATE in terms of economics and deterrence to receive swift and complete payment and the commitment of the Defendant to attempt to do so reflects his willingness to accept responsibility for his acts. Therefore, in the event that the Defendant pays $3,000,000.00 within 15 months of sentencing and has satisfied all other terms and conditions of community control and probation, the State agrees to the following: the community control portion of the defendant's sentence shall be reduced to 15 months; the term of probation shall be reduced to five (5) years; The STATE agrees to return to court for an Order reducing the total obligation by $500,000.00. Thus, the Defendant's total obligation under this Agreement would become Three Million dollars ($3,000,000.00). . . . The State has no objection to the entry of any Order by the court to permit travel outside of the United States for business purposes upon at least 2 weeks notice to the probation department and the permission of the defendant's probation officer. The Defendant understands that he may not travel outside the United States during the course of the community control portion of his sentence. Section VI was entitled "Withdrawal of Guilty Plea and Vacation of Sentence." It read as follows: In the event that the State files additional charges against the Defendant for matters currently under investigation, but not charged in the Information described in this AGREEMENT, the Defendant shall have the right and full entitlement to vacate the sentence imposed pursuant to this AGREEMENT and to withdraw his plea of guilty. The only condition to the Defendant's right and entitlement to vacate (as just described) shall be that the Defendant must not have breached this AGREEMENT prior to the additional charges being filed. If the Defendant does vacate and withdraw, all monies paid pursuant to this AGREEMENT shall be returned to the Defendant. The Plea Agreement also contained a "Waiver of Rights," which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: My entering into the AGREEMENT is not the result of force, threats, assurances or promises other than the promises contained in the attached agreement. I agree to the provision of this agreement as a voluntary act on my part, rather than at the discretion of or because of the recommendation of any other person, and I agree to be bound by its provisions. I agree that this written plea agreement contains all the terms and conditions of my plea and that promises made by anyone that are not contained within this written agreement are without force and effect and are null and void. . . . The Plea Agreement was signed by Mr. Pinkoff (on September 26, 2001), his attorneys (on September 26, 2001 and November 8, 2000), and the Special Counsel of Health Care Fraud Prosecution (on September 26, 2000). Mr. Pinkoff is currently under "house arrest" at his residence (which he owns) located at 5721 Oakview Terrace in Hollywood, Florida; however, he is allowed to leave his home to work at his office (which is also located in Florida). Mr. Pinkoff is still in the "pharmaceutical wholesaling" business. His business is licensed "out of Georgia." Mr. Pinkoff has paid approximately $200,000.00 of the amount that he owes the State of Florida pursuant to the terms of his Plea Agreement. He sold the 6001 North Ocean Drive property referenced in the Plea Agreement for $1.2 million. The state received approximately $192,000.00 of the proceeds from the sale Mr. Pinkoff is presently paying the state $1,000.00 a month.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that AHCA enter a final order finding that Petitioner received $4,247,497.70 in Medicaid overpayments for claims covering the period from September 10, 1997, through August 31, 1998, and requiring Petitioner to repay this amount to AHCA. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of October, 2002.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is liable for overpayment of Medicaid claims for the period of January 1, 2001, through January 1, 2003, as stated in Respondent's Final Agency Audit Report dated October 26, 2004, in violation of Sections 409.907 and/or 409.913, Florida Statutes (2002), and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulations of the parties and the evidence presented at the hearing, the following relevant Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is the state agency charged with the regulation of the Medicaid program in the State of Florida and has the authority to perform Medicaid audits and collect overpayments, pursuant to Section 409.913, Florida Statutes (2002). Petitioner is a Florida-licensed physician and an authorized Medicaid provider. He was paid by Medicaid for providing services to Medicaid patients during the Audit Period of calendar years 2001 and 2002. Blanca Notman, R.N., Medicaid health care analyst in Respondent's Medicaid Program Integrity Unit, conducted the audit of Petitioner's Medicaid billing during the Audit Period. Respondent's audit involved a review of services Petitioner provided during the Audit Period of 30 randomly chosen Medicaid patients. Upon completion of the audit, Respondent alleged that during the Audit Period, Petitioner violated Medicaid policy and law in that: (1) some services for which Petitioner billed and received payment were not documented; (2) the documentation/medical records Petitioner provided to Respondent support a lower level of office or hospital visit than the one for which Petitioner billed and received payment; (3) Petitioner billed for radiology services when a radiologist outside of the office/group previously billed the reading and interpretation; and (4) Petitioner's records indicate instances of double- billing Medicaid for services by using two CPT codes when one of these codes incorporates the elements of the other. With respect to each of the services reviewed, Respondent relied upon the opinion of its expert, Dr. Averbuch, as to whether or not Petitioner billed Medicaid correctly. Dr. Averbuch based his opinion on a review of documents regarding each service which were provided to him by Respondent. Respondent did not establish that the records provided to Dr. Averbuch were complete, and in several instances, the records reviewed by Dr. Averbuch were incomplete. The most common difference of opinion between what was billed by Petitioner for each service and what Dr. Averbuch felt should have been billed, involved the "level of service." Billing codes are five-digit numbers, the last digit denoting the degree of difficulty of the service. Generally, there are five "levels of service," with "1" being the least difficult and "5" being the most difficult. There are general guidelines for establishing the "level of service" (or degree of difficulty) which are set forth in documents such as Documentation Guidelines for Evaluation and Management Services, published by the American Medical Association. However, the correct coding can only be established through expert testimony, which is based upon established and identified criteria. With respect to each of the 30 patients being reviewed, Respondent prepared a worksheet listing each service provided by Petitioner for that patient during the two-year Audit Period, the code and amount billed for each of those services, and Dr. Averbuch's opinion of the code which he felt should have been billed. Dr. Averbuch testified that in his opinion, Petitioner's claims contained an inordinate number of level "4" and "5" claims and that his records did not support the level of coding billed to Respondent. Someone on Respondent's staff then filled in the purported dollar value for each adjusted code. That amount was subtracted from the amount originally billed by Petitioner, and an average error (dollar amount) for each sample claim was calculated. Respondent then applied the average error in the sample claims to all the claims during the Audit Period. A further statistical calculation was performed to arrive at a 95 percent confidence level which Respondent alleged to be the amount of overpayment it was seeking from Respondent. That amount was shown as $81,682.06.1/ Dr. Averbuch is a knowledgeable medical practitioner, who specializes in orthopedic surgery. Respondent did not establish what records he reviewed, where they came from, or that they were complete. Additionally, Dr. Averbuch's deposition testimony did not set forth much information regarding the reason he felt as he did when his opinion differed from that of Petitioner. Also, Respondent did not establish what criteria Dr. Averbuch relied upon in arriving at his opinion. Jeffrey Howard, a consultant for Petitioner, although not a physician or other health care provider, is an experienced CPT code reviewer. He testified at length about each billing code in which he disagreed with Dr. Averbuch. In his testimony, he included details about each patient and each billed service. He also testified that he relied upon the 1995 Documentation Guidelines for Evaluation and Management Services, which has been adopted by HCFA, to base his opinions. Howard did not support all of Petitioner's billings. There are 40 instances in which Petitioner challenges the billing codes urged by Respondent. This is a substantial proportion of the billing codes which were in dispute. There are eight billing codes, the values of which need to be established to calculate the overpayment in this case. Those codes are: 99204, 99213, 99214, 99243, 99244, 99245, 29876, and 76140. In carefully reviewing each of the joint exhibits admitted in this case, the dollar amount for code 99204 was established by the worksheet on Patients 10 and 30, to be $68.74. The dollar amount for code 99213 is a variable amount. In January 2001 through April 3, 2001, it is $26.29 (Patients 2, 24, and 4). The amount goes up to $31.31 (Patient 21) in June and July 2001, then returns to $26.29 in August and September for Patients 13 and 7. Once again, the amount goes up to $31.31 in October 2001 (Patient 29), before backing down to $26.47, where it remains until March 5, 2002, when it once again goes to $31.31 (Patients 2, 14, and 6). On April 23, 2002, the dollar value for code 99213 returns to $26.47, where it stays for the rest of the Audit Period, except for June 21, 2002, when it changes to $31.31 for Patient 21. The dollar amount for code 99214 seems to fluctuate even more than code 99213. It is valued at anywhere from $39.03 (Patients 24, 13, and 7) to $48.27 (Patients 16, 17, 9, and 11) and at least four values in between. It changes 13 times, both up and down, during the two-year Audit Period. The dollar amount for code 99243 fluctuates between $62.11 and $64.28, with the majority approved at $64.28. The dollar amount of code 99244 is not reflected anywhere in the record. The dollar amount for code 99245 fluctuates in an apparently random fashion between $112.18 and $122.84, with three values in between. The dollar amount for code 29876 is $121.00, according to the worksheet for Patient 2. The dollar amount for code 76140 is not reflected anywhere in the record. Because of the seemingly random variation in the dollar amounts for codes 99213, 99214, 99243, and 99245, which were not explained and could be the result of clerical error, it is found that Petitioner shall be given credit for the highest dollar amount for each of those three codes that are reflected in the record, that is: 99213 + $31.31; 99214 + $48.27; 99243 + $64.28; and 99245 + $122.84, unless those amounts are greater than that originally billed by Petitioner, in which case he shall be given credit for the amount billed. Since there is nothing in the record to establish the value of code 99244, it is found that Petitioner shall be given credit for the value of the next higher level of service (code 99245), which is valued at $122.84 or any lesser amount which was originally billed. Since there is nothing in the record to establish the value of code 76140, it is found that Petitioner shall be given credit for the value of the service as he originally billed it at $42.81 [Patient 24, Date of Service [DOS] January 7, 2002, code 72148]. Patient 1 was a 64-year-old woman that was referred to Petitioner and presented with numbness and pain in the right hand and wrist. The patient had a stroke in 1994 on her left side and had numbness and tingling in the right upper extremity. The patient had been referred by a neurologist, Dr. Jeronimo, who had performed an electromyography and nerve conduction studies. The symptoms indicated carpal tunnel syndrome. The patient had not received treatment for this condition and was, at the time of the visit, on nine different medications. The fact of a prior cerebral vascular accident and the multitude of medications added complexity to this case. Petitioner recommended surgery, but the patient requested alternatives. The patient was placed in a splint and instructed on home therapies. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code should be 99244, and Petitioner shall receive credit for $116.12 for DOS October 15, 2002, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $13.04. Patient 2 was a 24-year-old woman who saw Petitioner for the first time in 2001. The patient had injured her knee in 1998 and was not treated by an orthopedist. The patient had pain in the right knee, and it popped and moved in a funny way. She had difficulty ambulating. Petitioner reviewed the patient's history, examined the patient, and X-rays were taken. Petitioner's impression was a torn medial meniscus, which had been left untreated for three years. Petitioner counseled the patient about further diagnostic work, but the patient opted for surgery. Petitioner performed and billed two separate procedures, arthroscopy knee surgical synovectomy (code 29876) and arthroscopy knee surgical meniscusectomy (code 29880). Dr. Averbuch testified that this was "unbundling," but Howard explained how it was not according to the National Correct Coding Edits. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that Petitioner should receive credit for $115.18 for DOS January 4, 2001, code 99244; and $121.00 for DOS January 19, 2001, code 29876, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $61.50. Patient 3 was a 37-year-old female with chronic back pain for several years. She had been previously treated with various treatments without relief. The patient was on Social Security disability because of her condition. The patient was upset and crying during her visit to Petitioner on July 3, 2001, because of her back pain. Recently, the patient reported the pain had been getting worse. The patient did not bring any previous medical records with her. Petitioner observed that she was limited in her motion. Petitioner based his diagnosis solely upon his physical examination and discussion with the patient. Because of the nature of her injury, this was a highly complex patient. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code should be 99244, and Petitioner should receive credit for $113.18 for DOS July 3, 2001, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to zero. Patient 4 was seen by Petitioner five years prior to the visit of April 3, 2001. The patient presented with swelling and pain in the right elbow. She had recently experienced soreness and redness in the area of the right elbow. She had been seen at a diagnostic center where she had been X-rayed, but was not treated other than she was advised to take Ibuprofen. The patient had not improved. The patient had also experienced a severe sprain of her knee in the past, but was allergic to codeine. Petitioner reviewed her past medical history and gave her an examination. The bursitis appeared to be resolving. The patient was counseled to come back if she had any more swelling and that she might need an aspiration. This patient was complex due to insufficient history and past treatment. Since the patient had not been seen in over three years, she was considered a "new patient" per the CPT guidelines. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code should be 99204 for DOS April 3, 2001, and Petitioner should receive credit for $68.74 (the value of code 99204 as established by Patients 10 and 30), thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $15.48. Patient 5 was a new patient, who was referred by Dr. Cosic. She was a 13-year-old female who had been having pain in her right knee for two years. She had not seen any other physician for this problem. In 1995, the patient had been struck by a vehicle and sustained some damage. Petitioner reviewed the patient's history and examined the patient. He took an X-ray, which showed a possible tumor. This is a complex case. Dr. Averbuch recognized in his deposition that this patient had been referred by another physician, yet he opined that the proper coding should not be for a referral. The greater weight of evidence demonstrated that Petitioner should receive credit for $115.18 for DOS June 19, 2001, because the correct code is 99245, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to zero. Patient 6 was a 17-year-old male who injured his hand when he struck a telephone pole. The majority of the pain was on the fifth metacarpal. Petitioner reviewed the patient's history and examined the patient. Tenderness was found on the border of the hand, which localized the ulna aspect, and X-rays were taken. The patient was given a short-arm cast and aluminum splint for his little finger. The age of this patient contributed to the complexity of this case. The greater weight of evidence shows that the correct code should be 99244, and Petitioner should receive credit for $118.12 for DOS February 12, 2002, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $15.11. Patient 7 was a 59-year-old female with pain in her right shoulder for four months. The patient was seen by another physician, Dr. Lynch, who referred her to Petitioner. The patient had difficulty raising her arms and sleeping. She had pain all over the subacromial clavicle region of the shoulder. She denied any trauma. Unexplained pain increases the complexity of a case. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code should be 99244, and Petitioner should receive credit for $113.18 for DOS August 20, 2001, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $12.74. Patient 8 had a chief complaint of pain in the right knee. She was a 73-year-old female from Sulfur Springs (over an hour's drive away from Petitioner's office), who had been having problems for three months with her right knee. It resulted from an injury when she slipped and fell at home. The pain was on the medial side of the knee. She had seen a physician in Sebring and received an MRI. The MRI revealed a tear in the posterior medial meniscus. She was referred to Petitioner, who reviewed the history and performed an examination. His impression was a torn medial meniscus, and the plan was for arthroscopic surgery. Although Petitioner initially agreed with the lower code, the need for surgery added to the complexity of this case. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code should be 99244, and Petitioner should receive credit for $116.12 for DOS July 1, 2002, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $15.97. Patient 9 was a 13-year-old male with pain in his right hand, who saw Petitioner on February 15, 2001. He had fallen off his bicycle and had abrasions on this right hand. The patient had been seen at another facility where he was X-rayed and received a splint. Due to pain, the patient had removed the splint. Petitioner reviewed the patient's history and examined the patient. He took X-rays, which demonstrated a fracture of the second metacarpal of the distal limb. The patient was treated with an aluminum splint. Although Petitioner initially agreed with the lower code, due to the previous treatment which did not work, this was a relatively complex case. On the May 28, 2002, visit, Patient 9 had an injured left ankle, again from a bicycle accident, five days prior. The patient had difficulty walking. He had received a splint at another facility. There was tenderness over the anterior lateral aspect of the ankle, and X-rays were taken. The complexity of this patient was influenced by the patient's Tourette's Syndrome and his Attention Deficit Disorder. The patient was changed from a splint to a hand-walker. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS February 15, 2001, should be 99244, and Petitioner should receive credit for $115.18. For DOS May 28, 2002, the correct code should be 99214, and Petitioner should be given credit for $8.27, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $36.90. Patient 10 was a referral from Dr. Madedes of Suncoast Community Center, Inc. The patient was diagnosed as a "classic gamekeepers thumb." The correct code should be 99243. Therefore, Petitioner should not be given any credit for DOS December 5, 2002. Patient 11 was a referral from the Nativity Clinic. He was a 13-year-old male who had fallen off his bicycle approximately 31 days previously. He was diagnosed with a fracture and was treated without a reduction. He had been placed in a cast. Petitioner reviewed the medical history and performed an examination. Petitioner checked the patient's range of motion and took X-rays. Petitioner diagnosed a fracture of the left distal radius. He told the patient to return in two weeks for removal of the cast. A complicating factor in this case is that the patient also had back pain. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code should be 99244, and Petitioner should receive credit for $122.84 for DOS July 21, 2002, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $21.80. Patient 12 was a 37-year-old female from Avon Park who was referred to Petitioner by another physician. She had been in an auto accident three years prior, and her shoulder was hurting and getting worse. She had seen other physicians and had MRIs. At the November 12, 2002, visit, she did not bring any medical records with her. The patient was a poor historian. At the time of her visit, she said that the pain was going into her back as well. Petitioner reviewed the history and performed an examination, which included palpation of the shoulder, which did not reveal tenderness or swelling. Petitioner also performed range of motion tests. X-rays did not show any abnormalities. Petitioner's clinical impression was "shoulder pain, etiology undetermined." The patient was sent for an MRI. An old injury, which although being treated, continues to get worse, increases the complexity of this case. With respect to the visit of November 26, 2002, the patient did not show signs of improvement, and a decision was made for surgery. This decision was not complex. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS November 12, 2002, should be 99244, and Petitioner should receive credit for $115.12. The correct code for DOS November 26, 2002, should be 99213, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $39.51. Patient 13 was a referral from Dr. Haiger and was seen by Petitioner on June 5, 2001. The patient was a 65-year-old deaf female, who presented experiencing severe pain in her left knee for almost ten years. Eight years prior she had undergone arthroscopic surgery on the knee, but it had not gotten better. The patient was in physical therapy and using canes. Petitioner reviewed the history and performed an examination. Communication between Petitioner and the patient was by writing. This was a complex patient, both because of the difficulty in communication and the fact that this was an old injury which had received much treatment, including surgery, and had not improved. On her return visit on August 7, 2001, the patient had not improved using the ordered medication. After consultation, a decision for surgery was made. With respect to the visit of June 4, 2002, the patient's complaint was pain in her left shoulder for a month. The patient continues to regress, in spite of Petitioner's treatment. This is a complex patient, and her medical record is voluminous. However, the visit of August 13, 2002, was merely routine. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that Petitioner should be given credit for $113.18 for DOS June 5, 2001, since the correct code is 99244; the correct code for DOS August 7, 2001, is 99213; the correct code for DOS June 4, 2002, is 99214; and the correct code for DOS August 13, 2002, is 99213, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $89.21. Patient 14 was a referral from Dr. Bagloo, who presented to Petitioner on January 15, 2002, with pain in her left foot. She had twisted her ankle at home a week previously and actually heard bones cracking. She was initially seen at the hospital. A computed tomography scan did not reveal a fracture. A week later on January 15, 2002, she came to see Petitioner. Her examination revealed tenderness of the dorsal aspect of the left foot. An X-ray revealed a fracture of the second-base metatarsal. The patient received a short-leg cast. The patient was seen again on February 12, 2002, and examination indicated that the patient was "healed." On July 9, 2002, the patient again saw Petitioner with pain in her left foot. She had experienced a seizure a week and a half prior. The seizure and the prior injury added to the complexity of this case. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS January 15, 2002, is 99244, and Petitioner should be given credit for $118.12. The correct code for DOS February 12, 2002, is 99213, and Petitioner should receive no credit; the correct code for DOS July 9, 2002, is 99214, and Petitioner should be given credit for $48.27, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $32.33. Patient 15 was a 15-year-old male from Avon Park, with scoliosis. He had hurt himself when he fell off his boogie board and hit his chest. After reviewing the history, performing an examination, and taking X-rays, the patient was referred to a pediatric orthopedist. The age of the patient and the pre-existing condition affected the complexity of this case, although the scoliosis was previously diagnosed. The greater weight of evidence supports a finding that the correct code for DOS June 11, 2002, is 99243, and Petitioner should not be given credit. Therefore, there is no reduction of the total amount disallowed. Patient 16 was a referral from Dr. Libbrato. However, the patient was previously diagnosed, Petitioner billed at code 99245, and Respondent's expert opined that the code should be 99203. The billing code should account for this being a referral. The greater weight of evidence supports a finding that the correct code for DOS March 25, 2002, is 99243, and Petitioner should be given credit for $64.28, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $75.64. Patient 17 was a referral from a Medicaid clinic. The patient was a 10-year-old male who had hurt his left elbow playing football a week prior. Petitioner reviewed the history and examined the patient, who was in a long-arm splint. Petitioner replaced the splint with a long-arm cast. The age of the patient and the prior inappropriate treatment added to the complexity of this case. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that for DOS May 14, 2002, the correct code is 99244, and Petitioner should be given credit for $122.84. The correct code DOS June 6, 2002, is 99213, and Petitioner should be given credit for $31.31, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $38.76. Patient 18 was a 63-year-old male who had been referred by another physician for pain in his right-hand ring finger of six months' duration. The patient claimed no trauma. The age of the patient and the unexplained injury added to the complexity of this case. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS June 18, 2002, should be 99244, and Petitioner should be given credit for $116.12, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to zero. Patient 19 presented with a fracture that appeared to be healing, but it was difficult to tell if the patient's problem was from the fracture or from osteoporosis. The patient was not responding to treatment. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS August 12, 2002, is 99214, and Petitioner should be given credit for $41.51, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $15.04. Patient 20 was an eight-year-old male who had pain in his left heel from jumping off a truck and falling. He was referred from his primary care physician. The complexity of this case was increased due to the age of the patient and the fact that prior treatment had not been effective. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS October 17, 2002, is 99244, and Petitioner should be given credit for $122.84, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to zero. Patient 21 was a 10-year-old male from Plant City, who injured his right arm and shoulder in a fall from monkey bars. Petitioner's diagnosis was a fractured right humerus. The young age of this patient, plus the fact that he was a referral, added to the complexity of this case. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS May 24, 2001, is 99244, and Petitioner should be given credit for $115.18, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $45.33. Patient 22 was a nine-year-old male referred by Dr. Narvez for right leg pain. He was injured when another child fell on him. Also, the patient had broken the same leg about a year prior. A re-injury and young age added to the complexity of this case. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS January 8, 2002, is 99244, and Petitioner should be given credit for $118.12, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to zero. Patient 23 was a 37-year-old male from Lake Placid, referred by Dr. Campbell. He presented with right shoulder pain. Approximately two years prior he was shot in that shoulder. The pain was in the acromioclavicular joint. The pain was felt to be a result of the injury from the gunshot wound, and surgery was recommended. The pre-existing condition increased the complexity of this case. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS January 29, 2002, is 99244, and Petitioner should be given credit for $116.12, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $14.47. Patient 24 was referred by Dr. Rivas for ongoing low back pain. The patient presented on January 16, 2001, as a 53-year-old female and stated that the pain had been getting worse in spite of treatment. It was localized in the left groin, the left posterior iliac region, the left buttock, the posterior aspect of the thigh, and the calf. The long-standing nature of the pain, without improvement from treatment, added to the complexity of this case, as well as the multiple therapies employed. The MRI reading on February 1, 2001, should be allowed. On the visit of March 1, 2001, the patient reports a new problem with pain in her knee. The visit of June 5, 2001, revealed that the patient is improved, but still in pain. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that Petitioner should be given credit for $115.18 for DOS January 16, 2001, code 99245; $42.81 for DOS February 11, 2001, code 76140; $31.31 for DOS March 1, 2001, code 99213; $31.31 for DOS June 5, 2001, code 99213, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $28.18. Patient 25 was a seven-year-old female from Lake Wales, referred by Dr. Powell for bilateral leg deformities and fallen arches. The patient also had scoliosis. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS January 27, 2001, is 99244, and Petitioner should be given credit for $115.18, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $32.56. Patient 26 was an 18-year-old male with scoliosis, who had recently come to the United States from Cuba and was referred to Petitioner for evaluation. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS September 12, 2002, is 99243, and Petitioner should not be given credit, thus the total amount disallowed remains at $58.56. Patient 27 was a 36-year-old female who was referred by Dr. Korabathing for left hip pain. She had injured it two or three weeks prior when she fell. She was initially seen in the emergency room. The discoloration persisted and the knee continued to "give out." The complexity of the case is increased because of the patient's lack of improvement. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code is 99244 for DOS April 11, 2002, and for April 23, 2002, the correct code is 99214, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $29.87. There was no challenge to the adjusted coding of Patient 28 to 99213. Patient 29 was a referral from Dr. Katherinlin. He was a 13-year-old male, who injured his left foot while playing football two or three days prior. He was initially treated at an outpatient facility. Petitioner changed the treatment plan. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS October 2, 2001, is 99244, and although he did not initially challenge the change in coding, Petitioner should be given credit for $116.12, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $15.11. Patient 30 was referred by Family Medical Center of Lakeland, Florida. The patient was a 56-year-old male with pain in the right hip and pelvis. He had been in a motorcycle accident three years prior with numerous and substantial injuries. Due to the number and substantiality of the injuries, this was a complex case. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS February 26, 2002, is 99244, and Petitioner should be given credit for $118.12, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to zero. The adjustments in the preceding paragraphs drop the total overpayments for the 30 sample patients as shown in Respondent's Audit Report from $2,405.10 to $790.99. Dividing that by the total number of sample claims reviewed (133), yields a disallowance per claim of $5.94. Multiplying $5.94 by the total number of claims for the Audit Period (5,399), yields a "point estimate of overpayment" of $32,070.06. Calculating the 95 percent confidence level can be accomplished by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, enter a final order revising its Final Agency Audit Report as directed herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2005.
