The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency or Petitioner) is entitled to recover from Ideal Pugh, Sr., d/b/a Services on Time, LLC (Respondent), alleged Medicaid overpayments, administrative fines, and investigative, legal, and expert witness costs.
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, Ideal Pugh, Sr., d/b/a Services on Time, LLC: To repay the sum of $563,073.76, for overpayments on claims that did not comply with the requirements of Medicaid laws, rules, and provider handbooks; To pay interest on the sum of $563,073.76 at the rate of ten percent per annum from the date of the overpayment determination; To pay a fine of $1,000 for failure to furnish all Medicaid-related records within the requested timeframe; To pay a fine of $1,500 for violations of the requirements of Medicaid laws, rules, and provider handbooks; and To pay allowable costs pursuant to subsection 409.913(23)(a), Florida Statutes. If a disputed issue of material fact arises regarding the appropriate amount of those costs, the matter may be referred back to DOAH for a further recommendation regarding costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 31st day of May, 2012.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent is liable to Petitioner for the principal sum of $94,675.83, which equals the amount that the Florida Medicaid Program paid Respondent for the "professional component" of claims for radiologic services rendered to Respondent's patients between July 1, 2001 and December 31, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA" or the "Agency") is the state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program ("Medicaid"). Respondent Harold L. Murray, M.D. ("Murray") was, at all relevant times, a Medicaid provider authorized to receive reimbursement for covered services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Exercising its statutory authority to oversee the integrity of Medicaid, the Agency sent investigators to Murray's office on November 22, 2005. The purpose of this visit was to verify that claims paid by Medicaid had not exceeded authorized amounts. To this end, the investigators inspected Murray's facilities and reviewed his medical records. What the investigators saw gave them reasons to believe that Medicaid had been overpaying Murray for radiologic services. They focused on the period from July 1, 2001 to December 31, 2005 (the "Audit Period"). During the Audit Period, Murray had submitted approximately 2,000 claims seeking the "maximum fee" for radiologic services, which Medicaid had paid. The maximum fee includes compensation for "professional component" services. (Medicaid uses the term "professional component" to describe the physician's services of interpreting a radiologic study and reporting his or her findings. These services are distinguished from those comprising the "technical component," which are routinely performed by technicians. These latter services include operating the radiologic equipment (e.g. an X-ray or sonographic machine) and performing the exam.) It appeared to the investigators that Murray had not, in fact, been performing the professional component. Using information in its database, the Agency determined that, during the Audit Period, Murray had received Medicaid payments totaling $94,675.83 for professional component services. The Agency repeatedly requested that Murray supply additional information that might substantiate his prior claims for fees relating to the professional component. Murray failed, refused, or was unable to comply with the Agency's requests. Murray did testify at hearing, however, providing a reasonably clear picture of what had occurred. On direct examination, Murray explained that he had performed the "first preliminary" review of each radiologic examination in question before sending the study to a radiologist, whom he paid "out of [his own] pocket" to interpret the exam and make a report. According to Murray, Medicaid paid only for his (Murray's) professional component services——not the radiologist's. Murray argues that he is entitled to compensation for the professional component services that he personally performed, notwithstanding that another doctor performed the same services. Analysis of the Facts Although Murray's position might have some superficial appeal, it does not withstand scrutiny as a matter of fact, the undersigned has determined. To explain why this is so requires an analysis of Murray's testimony that entails neither legal conclusions nor findings of historical fact. The undersigned's rationale, being essentially fact-based, is explicated here in the interests of organizational coherence and readability. Assume first, for the sake of argument, that Murray's "first preliminary" review constituted an authoritative interpretation of the radiologic study. Because it is reasonable to infer (and the undersigned finds) that the radiologist's subsequent interpretation of the study was authoritative——Murray's routine practice of ordering and personally paying for the "second opinion" would have been inexplicable, and indeed irrational, if the radiologist's interpretation were of dubious value——the inevitable conclusion, assuming Murray's findings were authoritative, is that the "second opinion" was nearly always duplicative, excessive, and unnecessary.i Murray's responses to that conclusion doubtless would be: (1) Medicaid did not pay for the second opinion, so whether it was excessive and unnecessary is irrelevant; and (2) there is no statute, rule, or Medicaid policy that forbids a provider from procuring, at his own expense, a second opinion——even an unnecessary one. It is not accurate to say, however, that Medicaid did not pay for the second opinion; this, ultimately, is the fatal flaw in Murray's reasoning. To the contrary, Murray's testimony shows clearly that Medicaid did pay for some or all of the expense of the second opinion, albeit indirectly, when it paid Murray for the same work. As his own account reveals, Murray was, in effect, merely a conduit for the Medicaid money, which passed through his hands on its way to the radiologist. Murray contends, of course, that the Medicaid payments for the professional component were "his," that he had earned them by performing the "first preliminary" read, and that he was free to spend his income however he chose. If our initial assumption were true, namely that Murray's preliminary interpretation were authoritative, then his claim to the Medicaid payments at issue might have merit. But, on reflection, this assumption is difficult, if not impossible, to square with the fact that Murray found it necessary always to pay another doctor to perform the very same professional component services. Indeed, having a second opinion was so important to Murray that he was willing to perform his purported preliminary read at a substantially discounted rate, at least, if not for free——or even, maybe, at a financial loss: in every instance, one of these was necessarily the net economic result of his actions.ii If, as we have assumed, Murray were performing a valuable professional service each time he interpreted a radiologic exam, then——the question naturally arises——why would he effectively have given away his expert opinions? Murray testified that he did so for "the safety of [his] patient" and because the radiologist is "educated for that." But these "answers," far from being persuasive, actually undermine the assumption that spawns the question of motive. Indeed, Murray's testimony confirms a reasonable inference contrary to our initial assumption, which inference is that Murray lacked sufficient confidence in his so-called "preliminary" interpretations ever to rely on them alone. This inference, which the undersigned accepts as a finding, arises from the basic undisputed fact that Murray routinely sought "second opinions" for every patient. It is ultimately determined, therefore, that whatever Murray's "first preliminary" reviews comprised, they did not constitute authoritative interpretations of the radiologic studies at hand. That being the case, it is determined that Murray's preliminary opinions added little or no actual value to the subject medical transactions. Offering some sort of provisional opinion that holds only until the "real" opinion can be obtained from the radiologist is not tantamount to performing the professional component.iii Based on the evidence presented, it is determined that the radiologist performed the professional component of the radiologic studies at issue, not Murray. As a result of improperly claiming that he had performed professional component services when in fact he had not, Murray received from Medicaid a total of $94,675.83 in payments that were not authorized to be paid. This grand total of $94,675.83 constitutes an overpayment that Murray must return to the Agency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency enter a final order requiring Murray to repay the Agency the principal amount of $94,675.83, together with an administrative fine of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 2007.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or Petitioner), is entitled to a recoupment for a Medicaid overpayment to Respondent, Humane Minority, Inc. (Humane or Respondent), in the amount of $177,581.26.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program. As part of its duties, Petitioner attempts to recover Medicaid overpayments from Medicaid providers. At all times material to this case, Humane was licensed to provide various health care services to Medicaid recipients under a contract to AHCA as a Medicaid provider. As provider number 255724000, Humane participated in the Medicaid program from January 1, 2005, to February 8, 2006 (audit period). As a Medicaid provider, Respondent was subject to audit. This case arose when the Discovery Unit of Medicaid Program Integrity (MPI) identified that during the audit period Humane billed 1.5 times as much for one week as compared to ten other weeks, which is an indicator of billing irregularities. As a result, the Discovery Unit of MPI recommended a comprehensive audit of Humane. Gary Mosier, a Registered Nursing Consultant employed by AHCA in the bureau of MPI, initiated the audit of Humane after receiving the Discovery Unit’s File #47650 Recommendation memo dated May 19, 2006, referring Humane for a comprehensive audit. On or about June 13, 2006, MPI requested 30 random Medicaid patients' records from Humane’s entire Medicaid patient group for the audit period. Humane complied with the request and supplied records. The submitted medical records included a Certificate of Completeness of Records from Humane stating the documents supplied constituted all of the Medicaid-related records for the 30 patients during the Audit period. After Humane provided the requested medical records to Mosier, he forwarded the records to three physician consultants: Machado, a general practitioner; Edgar, a psychiatrist; and Reisman, an urologist. Each physician consultant reviewed Humane’s records relevant to his area of expertise and filled out agency worksheets detailing why claims should be disallowed. MPI reviewed Humane’s records provided and the worksheets filled out by the three physician consultants and determined that overpayments were made to Humane due to numerous services in whole or in part not being covered by Medicaid, which violated various Medicaid policy guidelines set forth in both the Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook (General Handbook)1 and the Florida Medicaid Physician Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook (Physician Services Handbook).2 Humane violated policy by providing documentation that supported a lower level of office visit than the one for which Humane billed and received payment. Humane violated policy by billing and receiving payments for some services that were not documented. Humane violated policy by billing and receiving payment for services rendered by a practitioner who was not a member of Humane’s group. Humane violated policy by billing for procedure codes that have time requirements but not documenting the time spent providing the service. Humane violated policy by billing and receiving payment for services performed by another practitioner who was not enrolled in Medicaid at the time the services were rendered. Humane violated policy by billing and receiving payment for services for which the medical records, when reviewed by a Medicaid physician consultant, indicated that the services provided did not meet the Medicaid criteria for medical necessity. Humane violated policy by billing for radiology services when the reading and interpretation was done by a radiologist outside of the physician’s group. Humane violated policy and was paid for billing and received payment for portable x-ray services where Humane performed only the technical component and an independent interpreter performed the professional component. Humane violated policy and received payment when Humane did not bill according to the current procedural terminology guidelines in certain instances. On March 13, 2007, MPI issued its Preliminary Audit Report (PAR). The report detailed the Medicaid policy violations, overpayment amounts, and provided Humane the opportunity to submit an explanation or additional documentation demonstrating that some or all of the claims were properly paid. The report also notified Humane that a Final Audit Report (FAR) would be issued identifying the amount of overpayment due. Humane did not respond to the PAR. Consequently, on April 27, 2007, MPI issued a FAR, that included the amount of $177,581.26 that Humane received from Medicaid that was not authorized to be paid. This grand total of $177,581.26 constitutes an overpayment that Humane must return to the agency. A Final Audit Report-Corrected Copy was issued on May 22, 2007, correcting the total amount due.3 In addition to the overpayment amount, Petitioner also seeks a fine in the amount of $3,000.00. The fine is a calculated amount as authorized by rule.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency enter a final order requiring Humane to repay the Agency for the principal amount of $177,581.26 together with an administrative fine of $3000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY 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 22nd day of June, 2009.
The Issue Whether the Respondents were overpaid by Medicaid for radiology and nuclear medicine services provided to Florida Medicaid patients. The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA, Agency or Petitioner) asserts that the Respondents, Lazaro Plasencia, M.D., and Ana M. Elosegui, M.D., billed Medicaid for procedures they did not perform in violation of Medicaid policy, the Florida Administrative Code, and Florida Statutes. The Respondents maintain that because of ambiguities in Medicaid policy regarding reimbursement protocols for the radiology services at issue, the Respondents mistakenly believed in good faith that under the applicable Medicaid regulations and guidelines, Medicaid would reimburse the "maximum" fee allowable under the relevant fee schedule. The Respondents acknowledge that the "professional component" of the radiology services at issue was provided by a third-party physician specialist. The Respondents further assert that they are entitled to, at the minimum, payment of the "technical component" of the medically necessary radiological services that they provided to Medicaid recipients. The Petitioner seeks reimbursement from Dr. Plasencia in the amount of $196,129.52 and $122,065.08 from Dr. Elosegui.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of monitoring the Medicaid Program in Florida. At all times material to the allegations of DOAH Case No. 07-2195MPI, the Respondent, Dr. Plasencia, was a licensed medical doctor in good standing with the State of Florida, license #ME49315, and was also a Medicaid provider, #0448125-00. Similarly, at all times material to the allegations of DOAH Case No. 07-2462MPI, the Respondent, Dr. Elosegui, was a licensed medical doctor in good standing with the State of Florida, license #ME85963, and was also a Medicaid provider, #2654636-00. Drs. Elosegui and Plasencia practiced medicine together in a shared office space in Miami, Florida. The Respondents were not members of a "group practice." The Respondents were individual providers who billed Medicaid separately, using their individual Medicaid provider numbers. The doctors performed services for Medicaid recipients and submitted the charges for those services to Medicaid. Medicaid has a "pay and chase" policy of paying Medicaid claims as submitted by providers. Audits performed by the Agency then, after-the-fact, reconcile the amounts paid to providers with the amounts that were payable under the Medicaid guidelines and pertinent rules. If more is paid to the provider than allowable, a recoupment against the provider is sought. In these cases, the Respondents conducted (or supervised) various tests including "Radiological and Nuclear Medicine" services for Florida Medicaid patients in a shared office setting. The services at issue in these cases were billed under the CPT procedure codes of series 70000 and 90000. The Petitioner has not challenged any procedure at issue as not "medically necessary." Moreover, the Petitioner does not dispute that the Respondents performed or supervised the "technical component" of the universe of the radiological services at issue. The "professional component" for the universe of the radiological services at issue in this proceeding was outsourced to third-party physicians. The Respondents contracted with the outside third-party physicians for the "professional component" services to read and interprete the radiological product. These third party physicians were not Medicaid providers, nor were they part of a Medicaid group provider that included the Respondents. When billing for the radiological services, the Respondents billed Medicaid for both the "technical" and "professional" components using the "maximum" fee set forth in the Fee Schedule. The Respondents knew or should have known that they had not performed a global service as they never performed or supervised the "professional" component of the services billed. The Petitioner performed an audit of the radiological claims for Dr. Plasencia for the dates of service July 1, 2001 through December 31, 2005. On December 1, 2006, the Petitioner issued a Final Audit Report that concluded Dr. Plasencia had been overpaid $196,129.52. Additionally, the Petitioner sought an administrative fine against Dr. Plasencia in the amount of $1,000.00. Similarly, the Petitioner performed an audit of the radiological claims submitted by Dr. Elosegui for the dates of service October 11, 2002 through December 31, 2005. On December 1, 2006, the Petitioner issued a Final Audit Report that concluded Dr. Elosegui had been overpaid $122,065.08. The Petitioner also sought an administrative fine against Dr. Elosegui in the amount of $1,000.00. In January 2005, the Fee Schedule applicable to CPT 90000 procedure code services was revised. The Fee Schedule specified a reimbursement amount for the "technical" component of the radiological services in the CPT 90000 code set. Prior to that time, there had been no reimbursable amount for the "technical component" performed separately from the "professional component." The Medicaid provider agreements executed between the parties govern the contractual relationships between these providers and the Agency. The parties do not dispute that those provider agreements, together with the pertinent laws or regulations, control the billing and reimbursement claims that remain at issue. The amounts, if any, that were overpaid were related solely to the radiological services billed under a global or inclusive manner that included the "professional" component within the amount claimed to be owed by Medicaid. The provider agreements pertinent to these cases are voluntary agreements between AHCA and the Respondents. The Fee Schedule adopted by the Petitioner dictates the code and reimbursement amounts authorized to be billed pursuant to the provider agreement. The Respondents performed or supervised the "technical components" for the radiological services billed to Medicaid. The Respondents did not perform the "professional component." For all of the 70000 series billing codes the components can be split and the "technical component" can be identified and paid separately. For these billing codes, the Respondents were given (or paid for) the "technical component" of the 70000 codes. Similarly, for the 90000 billing codes, for the "technical component" portion where it was identifiable and allowable, the Petitioner gave the Respondents credit for that amount. The "technical component" for the 90000 billing codes was not identifiable or allowable prior to 2005. Prior to the amendment to the Fee Schedule the 90000 billing codes were presumed to be performed in a global manner; i.e. the "professional component" and the "technical component" were done together by the Medicaid provider submitting the claim. That was not the factual case in these audits. Respondents were not authorized to bill the 90000 codes in the global manner as they did not perform the "professional component" of the services rendered. Any Medicaid provider whose billing is not in compliance with the Medicaid billing policies may be subject to the recoupment of Medicaid payments. The Petitioner administers the Medicaid program in Florida. Pursuant to its authority AHCA conducts audits to assure compliance with the Medicaid provisions and provider agreements. These “integrity” audits are routinely performed and Medicaid providers are aware that they may be audited. These “integrity” audits are to assure that the provider bill and receive payment in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. The Respondents do not dispute the Agency’s authority to perform audits such as the ones at issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order of recoupment as set forth in the reports at issue. The final order should also impose an administrative fine against each Respondent in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Craig H. Smith, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Holly Benson, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Robert M. Penezic, Esquire Broad and Cassel Post Office Box 14010 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302-4010 L. William Porter, II, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Executive Center III 2727 Mahan Drive, Building 3, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Robert N. Nicholson, Esquire Broad and Cassel Post Office Box 14010 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302-4010
The Issue Whether Petitioner received Medicaid overpayments and, if so, the total amount of the overpayments.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is charged with administration of the Medicaid program in Florida pursuant to Section 409.907, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is a durable medical equipment provider that provided Medicaid services to Medicaid beneficiaries pursuant to a valid Medicaid Provider Agreement with AHCA under provider number 9512721 00. Petitioner was an authorized Medicaid provider during the period of October 1, 1999, through September 30, 2001, which is the audit period at issue here. AHCA conducted an audit of paid Medicaid claims for services claimed to have been performed by Petitioner from October 1, 1000, through September 30, 2001. On October 16, 2002, AHCA issued a Final Agency Audit Report ("FAAR") requesting Petitioner to reimburse AHCA in the amount of $28,407.90, for Medicaid claims submitted by and paid to Petitioner, for services allegedly rendered during the audit period. When the FAAR was issued, AHCA's claims for overpayment were based upon audit findings that paid Medicaid claims for certain services performed by Petitioner did not meet Medicaid requirements. The deficiencies in the subject Medicaid claims included a lack of documentation of required medication for nebulizer equipment, payments in excess of allowable total amounts for rent-to-purchase equipment, and payments for portable oxygen with a lack of documentation that the attending practitioner has ordered a program of exercise or an activity program for therapeutic purposes, that the recommended activities cannot be accomplished by the use of stationary oxygen service, and that the use of a portable oxygen system during exercise or activity results in improvement in the individual's ability to perform the exercises or activities. During the subject 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 dates of service. Petitioner had a duty to make sure that each claim was true and accurate and was for goods and services that were provided 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 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. Claire Cohen, AHCA's analyst, generated a random list of 30 Medicaid recipients (cluster sample) who had received services by Petitioner during the audit period. In addition, AHCA generated work papers revealing the following: the total number of Medicaid recipients during the audit period; the total claims of Petitioner, with dates of services; the total amount of money paid to the Petitioner during the audit period; and worksheets representing the analyst's review of each recipient's claims for the audit period. After Ms. Cohen reviewed the medical records and documentation provided by Petitioner, she reviewed the Medicaid handbook requirements, and arrived at a figure of $7,572.13 as the total overpayment for all cluster sample claims. Using the Agency's formula for calculating the extrapolated overpayment, Ms. Cohen determined that the overpayment in this case amounted to $29,703.63. Ms. Cohen then prepared the June 20, 2002, Preliminary Agency Audit Report (PAAR) and mailed it to Petitioner. At that point, the case was reassigned to Ellen Williams, a program analyst/investigator. Ms. Williams reviewed additional documentation submitted by Petitioner, and on October 16, 2002, issued on behalf of AHCA, the FAAR, which reduced the alleged overpayment to $28,407.90. Part of this reduction resulted from Petitioner's paying $369.97 to satisfy the issue concerning payments in excess of allowable totals for rent-to-purchase equipment. At the hearing, Ms. Williams testified that the adjusted overpayment amount was $27,473.27. The formula used by AHCA 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 AHCA are valid formulas. The DME/Medical Supply Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook provides, in part: Medicaid reimburses for portable oxygen when a practitioner prescribes activities requiring portable oxygen. The oxygen provider must document the following information in the recipient's record: the recipient qualifies for oxygen service; the attending practitioner has ordered a program of exercise or an activity program for therapeutic purposes; the recommended exercises or activities cannot be accomplished by the use of stationary oxygen services; and the use of a portable oxygen system during the activity or exercise results in an improvement in the individual's ability to perform the activities and exercises. The DME/Medical Supply Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook also provides, in part: Medicaid may reimburse for a nebulizer if the recipient's ability to breathe is severely impaired. The documentation of medial necessity must include required medications. The following payments are claimed by AHCA to be overpayments for failure to provide documentation of medical necessity and required medications: Recipient Date of Service Procedure Overpayment 4 7/19/00 E0570 $106.70 9 6/30/00 E0570 $106.70 10 10/24/00 E0570 $106.70 14 02/15/00 E0570 $106.70 16 05/08/00 E0570 $106.70 23 06/09/00 E0570 $106.70 26 06/14/00 E0570 $106.70 The remaining overpayments claimed by AHCA concern the failure to document that the attending practitioner had ordered a program of exercise or an activity program for therapeutic purposes that required the use of a portable oxygen system. 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 types of records that must be retained include "patient treatment plans" and "prescription records." The handbook goes on to provide in pertinent part: Medical records must state the necessity for and the extent of services provided. The following minimum requirements may vary according to the services rendered: * * * Treatment plan, including prescriptions; Medications, supplies, scheduling frequency for follow-up or other services; Progress reports, treatment 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, through its owners and operators, is of the view that it does not need to have the documentation on file, and it does not ask physicians for details about their prescriptions, "because that's something private from doctors and patient." 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 AHCA. Petitioner routinely obtained from Medicaid beneficiaries to whom it provides goods or services a written statement authorizing other healthcare provides to furnish any information needed to determine benefits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency issue a final order requiring Petitioner to reimburse the Agency for Medicaid overpayments in the total amount of $27,473.27, plus such interest as may statutorily accrue. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Tom Barnhart, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Lawrence R. Metsch, Esquire Metsch & Metsch, P.A. 1455 Northwest 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner must reimburse Respondent an amount up to $1,676,390.45, which sum Petitioner received from the Florida Medicaid Program in payment of claims arising from Petitioner's dispensing of pharmaceuticals between July 3, 2000 and March 28, 2002. Respondent alleges that the amount in controversy represents an overpayment related to Petitioner's failure to demonstrate the availability of sufficient quantities of drugs to support its billings to the Medicaid program.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA" or the "Agency") is the state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program ("Medicaid"). Petitioner Disney Medical Equipment, Inc., d/b/a Disney Pharmacy Discount ("Disney Pharmacy"), was, at all relevant times, a Medicaid provider authorized, pursuant to contracts it had entered into with the Agency known as Provider Agreements, to receive reimbursement for covered services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Exercising its statutory authority to oversee the integrity of Medicaid, the Agency directed its agent, Heritage Information Systems, Inc. ("Heritage"), to conduct an audit of Disney Pharmacy's records to verify that claims paid by Medicaid during the period from July 3, 2000 to March 28, 2002 (the "Audit Period") had not exceeded authorized amounts. Over the course of four days in May 2002, three of Heritage's auditors reviewed records on-site at Disney Pharmacy's drugstore in Hialeah, Florida; they also interviewed some of the store's personnel. Thereafter, Heritage analyzed the data it had collected using several different approaches. Each approach pointed to the conclusion that Medicaid had paid too much on claims submitted by Disney Pharmacy during the Audit Period. The total amount of the alleged overpayment differed substantially, however, depending on the analytical approach taken. The approach that yielded the largest apparent overpayment was the "prorated purchase invoice" analysis. Generally speaking, under this approach, the volume of pharmaceuticals that the provider maintained in its inventory during the Audit Period is compared to the provider's contemporaneous Medicaid claims to determine whether the provider possessed enough of the relevant pharmaceuticals to support the Medicaid claims presented. If the total amount purportedly dispensed, according to the claims made in connection with a particular drug, exceeds the amount of that drug available at the time for dispensing, then an inference of impropriety arises with regard to those claims for which product was apparently unavailable; the Agency considers amounts paid on such claims to be overpayments. To determine the quantities of certain drugs that Disney Pharmacy had kept on hand during the Audit Period, Heritage tallied up the total number of "units" of selected drugs that Disney Pharmacy had acquired, using as a database the invoices reflecting Disney Pharmacy's purchases of the drugs under review. Heritage then ascertained——again using Disney Pharmacy's records——the utilization rate of Medicaid beneficiaries for each of the pharmaceuticals under consideration. In other words, Heritage determined, for each drug at issue, the relative demand——expressed as a percentage of the total number of units of that drug dispensed to all customers during the Audit Period——attributable to Medicaid beneficiaries. Heritage found, for example, that Medicaid recipients accounted for 55.13% of Disney Pharmacy's total sales of the drug Acetylcysteine-10% solution ("Acetylcysteine") during the Audit Period. Having calculated the total amount of each drug at issue that Disney Pharmacy had acquired during the Audit Period, and having further determined for each such drug the Medicaid utilization rate, Heritage multiplied the total number of available units of each drug by the applicable utilization rate, prorating the entire supply of each drug to reflect the approximate number of units available for dispensing to Medicaid recipients specifically. For example, Disney Pharmacy's records showed that it had purchased a total of 121,440 units of Acetylcysteine during the Audit Period. Disney Pharmacy's records showed, additionally, that this drug was dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries 55.13% of the time. Thus, the prorated quantity of Acetylcysteine available for Medicaid recipients was approximately 66,950 units (121,440 x 0.5513). The prorated number of available units of each subject drug was compared to the total number of units for which Medicaid had reimbursed Disney Pharmacy during the Audit Period. For Acetylcysteine, these figures were 66,950 and 1,076,070, respectively. If the total number of units for which Medicaid had paid on claims for a particular drug were found to exceed the amount of that drug which Disney Pharmacy apparently had on hand——as it did for Acetylcysteine——then the inventory shortfall——1,009,120 units in the case of Acetylcysteine——was multiplied by the drug's average per-unit cost to Medicaid, producing a drug-specific apparent overcharge. Thus, for example, because the average cost of Acetylcysteine was $0.65 per unit, the apparent overcharge with respect to this drug was $655,928.00. Using the foregoing approach, Heritage identified apparent overcharges in connection with 13 drugs. The sum of these drug-specific overcharges is $1,676,390.45. Two drugs—— Acetylcysteine and Ipratropium Solution ("Ipratropium")——account for nearly 93% of this grand total. Two other drugs——Albuterol- 0.83% ("Albuterol") and Metaproterenol-0.4% ("Metaproterenol")—— account for another 7.0% of the total alleged overcharge. These four drugs——whose individual overcharges, taken together, comprise approximately 99.8% of the total alleged overcharge of $1,676,390.45——are used for treating breathing disorders and typically are inhaled by the patients who use them.i There is no genuine dispute regarding the reason why Disney Pharmacy was unable to document its acquisition of Acetylcysteine, Ipratropium, Albuterol, and Metaproterenol (collectively the "Inhalation Therapy Drugs") in quantities sufficient to support its claims to Medicaid for these pharmaceuticals. During the Audit Period, Disney Pharmacy generally filled prescriptions for the Inhalation Therapy Drugs by "compounding" the prescribed medications. (Compounding is a process whereby the pharmacist mixes or combines ingredients to fashion a tailor-made medication for the patient.) Thus, Disney Pharmacy (for the most part) did not purchase the commercially available versions of the Inhalation Therapy Drugs; rather, it created its own "generic copies" of these medications, purchasing only the raw materials needed to make finished products. Medicaid reimburses for compound drugs under certain conditions, which will be spelled out below. But first: it is undisputed that Disney Pharmacy did not submit claims for compound drugs. Instead, in presenting claims to Medicaid for the Inhalation Therapy Drugs, Disney Pharmacy billed the medications under their respective National Drug Code ("NDC") numbers, as though commercially manufactured drug products had been dispensed. (An NDC is an 11-digit number, unique to each commercially available pharmaceutical, which identifies the manufacturer, product, and package size.) As a result, Medicaid paid Disney Pharmacy for mass produced products when, in fact, the pharmacy actually had dispensed its own homemade copies thereof. According to the Prescribed Drug Coverage, Limitations and Reimbursement Handbook ("Medicaid Handbook"), which authoritatively sets forth the terms and conditions under which Medicaid reimburses providers for dispensing pharmaceuticals, Medicaid may pay for a compound drug if the following criteria are met: At least one pharmaceutical is a reimbursable legend drug; The finished product is not otherwise commercially available; and The finished product is being prepared to treat a specific recipient's condition. Medicaid Handbook at 9-16.ii To present a claim for a compound drug, the provider must adhere to the following instructions: Compound drug codes must be submitted on paper Pharmacy 061 claim forms, because they are reviewed and manually priced by Medicaid. When billing for a compound drug, enter one of the following compound drug codes. More than one code is available so that more than one compound can be dispensed to a recipient on the same day without using the same number. Id. 55555-5555-55 66666-6666-66 77777-7777-77 88888-8888-88 Disney Pharmacy attempts to defend its failure to follow the unambiguous instructions for billing compound drugs by explaining that, before commencing the practice of compounding, the provider's owner, Sara Padron, made a telephone call to AHCA to ask for guidance on submitting claims for drugs created on-site. Ms. Padron testified at hearing that the AHCA employee with whom she spoke had told her to present claims for compound drugs by billing for the manufactured products that they most resembled, using the manufactured products' NDC numbers. Ms. Padron could not identify the person who purportedly gave her this plainly incorrect advice. Ms. Padron's testimony in this regard was not contradicted——although in fairness to the Agency hers was the kind of testimony that resists direct evidential challenge, forcing an opponent to stress the implausibility of the claim as a means of discrediting it. Ms. Padron's account cannot simply be dismissed as incredible, for an AHCA employee undoubtedly could give an incorrect answer to a provider's question. But even assuming that Ms. Padron reached a person whom one reasonably could suppose to be knowledgeable about Medicaid billing procedures, and further assuming Ms. Padron asked a clear question which fairly and accurately described the situation, neither of which was proved or should be taken for granted, the undersigned remains skeptical that Ms. Padron was instructed to bill for compound drugs as if billing for their commercially available counterparts: the advice is just too obviously wrong. It is not necessary, however, to accept or reject Ms. Padron's testimony concerning the "official" answer she says she received because even if Ms. Padron were told to bill for compound drugs as though manufactured products had been dispensed, no reasonable provider could have relied upon such a dubious oral representation. The statement, for starters, is an invitation to commit fraud. Common sense should inform any reasonable provider that a claim for something other than what was actually delivered will, if discovered, almost certainly be viewed as deceptive (or worse) by the payor. Additionally, the alleged statement attributed to AHCA's employee contradicts the plain instructions in the Medicaid Handbook on that very subject. No provider can reasonably rely upon verbal advice, given anonymously (or functionally so, since the advisor's name, if given, was evidently easily forgotten) over the telephone, which contravenes the clear language of the Medicaid Handbook. Disney Pharmacy's other defenses are likewise unpersuasive. Disney Pharmacy maintains that compounding the drugs in question substantially benefited the patients who received them, which is probably true——but certainly beside the point. The problem here is not with the practice of compounding per se; the problem is that Disney Pharmacy sought and received reimbursement from Medicaid for mass produced, commercially available drugs that had not actually been dispensed. For the same reason, it is irrelevant, even if likely true, that the Board of Pharmacy, which periodically inspects Disney Pharmacy, never objected to the compounding that was occurring at the premises. Again, to be clear, the problem is not that the compounding was improper, but that the Medicaid billing was improper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency enter a final order requiring Disney Pharmacy to repay the Agency the principal amount of $1,676,390.45. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 2006.
Findings Of Fact There is no genuine issue as to any of the following material facts: The Petitioner is 78 years old and, since at least 1995, has been eligible for Medicare based on her age. The Petitioner's monthly income is $594, and she has no assets or resources. Since at least 1995, she has been eligible for Medicaid based on her income and assets. F.A.C. Rule 59G-3.010(4) provides: (b) Medicare Supplemental Insurance (Part B) The monthly Medicare insurance premium is paid by the Agency directly to the Depart- ment of Health and Human Services for the Medicare and Medicaid eligible recipient. The deductible and co-insurance under Part B, Medicare, are paid for the Medicare and Medicaid eligible recipient by the Medi- caid fiscal agent. For physician services, Medicaid will cover the deductible and co- insurance only to the extent that the total payment received by the physician will not exceed the recognized Medicaid payment or, if there is no comparable Medicaid payment, 100 percent of the deductible and 75 percent of the co-insurance. In these situations, whether the physician did nor did not receive a payment from Medicaid, by billing Medicaid he is bound to the Medicaid payment schedule as payment in full. F.A.C. Rule 59G-3.230(6)(e) provides: Payment Methodology for Covered Services. * * * (e) Services provided to individuals who are covered by both Medicare and Medicaid must be billed to Medicare first. Medicaid will consider payment of the deductible and coinsurance, but in no case shall the combined Medicare and Medicaid payments exceed the maximum allowable Medicaid amount for the procedure. Pages 4-1, 4-2, 4-4, 4-5 and 4-6 and Appendix A-34-35 of The Florida Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook, HCFA-1500, Nov. 1994, incorporated by reference in F.A.C. Rule 59G-3.230(8), contain language that essentially implements F.A.C. Rules 59G-3.010(4) and 59G-3.230(6)(e). When rules on this subject initially were adopted on January 1, 1977, they did not include the challenged provisions. The challenged provisions were added by amendment adopted January 6, 1978. The preamble to the adopting rule's description of the impact of the challenged rules states that the rule "could . . . decrease . . . the number of physicians [and] result in Medicaid eligible individuals paying their own deductible and co-insurance, . . . changing physicians, or maintaining the same physician with the physician accepting a loss in income." (Fla. Admin. Weekly, Vol. 4, No. 1, Jan. 6, 1978, at 224-25.) Some Florida physicians who accept other patients, including patients eligible for Medicare based on age but not eligible for Medicaid, do not accept "dual eligible" patients like the Petitioner (i.e., patients eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid) because the physician makes less money providing services for "dual eligible" patients under the terms of F.A.C. Rules 59G-3.010(4) and 59G-3.230(6)(e) and The Florida Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook than the physician can make providing services for other patients, including patients eligible for Medicare based on age but not eligible for Medicaid. In 1995, the Petitioner's physician required her to pay him fees for service in addition to the reimbursement he received from the Respondent under the terms of F.A.C. Rules 59G-3.010(4) and 59G-3.230(6)(e) and The Florida Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook although those provisions as well as his agreement with the Respondent prohibit him from doing so. The Intervenor asserts that other Florida physicians participating the Medicaid program, likewise in violation of F.A.C. Rules 59G-3.010(4) and 59G-3.230(6)(e) and The Florida Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook as well as their agreements with the Respondent, also "attempt to collect Medicare coinsurance and deductibles from patients who are indigent."
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (Petitioner or Agency), is entitled to a Medicaid reimbursement and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the authority and responsibility of administering the Florida Medicaid Program. As part of this authority, the Petitioner is required to recover Medicaid overpayments when appropriate. See § 409.913, Fla. Stat. (2006). At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was a licensed physician and a Medicaid provider subject to the provisions of Chapter 409. As a Medicaid provider, the Respondent was authorized to provide services to eligible patients but was obligated to comply with the Medicaid Provider Agreement in doing so. The Medicaid Program contemplates that authorized providers will provide services to eligible patients, bill the program and be paid according to the Medicaid standards. All Medicaid providers must practice within the guidelines of the Physicians Coverage and Limitations Handbook and applicable law. Providers may be audited so that it can be verified the process was appropriately followed. In this case, the Respondent was audited. According to the audit findings, the Respondent received payment for services that he did not perform. Dr. Eiber (a physician not part of the Respondent’s practice group) reviewed and signed off on x-ray studies and reports for which the Respondent billed and was paid by Medicaid. Dr. Eiber is a Medicaid provider but he is not affiliated with the Respondent or the Respondent’s group. In order for the Respondent to bill and receive payment for Dr. Eiber’s work, the latter physician would have to be listed and identified within the group in which the Respondent practiced. The Respondent was responsible for all billings for which he received payments. In connection with billing, the Respondent was required to maintain and retain all Medicaid- related invoices or claims for the audit period. In this regard, the Physician Coverage and Limitations Handbook specifies that when a radiological study is performed in an office setting, either the physician billing the maximum fee must have performed or indirectly supervised the performance and interpreted the study; or if a group practice, a member of the group must perform all components of the services. That procedure was not followed. When the Agency disallows a paid Medicaid claim, it must seek to recover the overpayment from the Medicaid provider who received payment on the claim. This is the basis of the “pay and chase” methodology used in the Medicaid program. The claims are paid, subject to audit, and recovery is sought when the claim is disallowed. Based on the audit findings in this cause, the Agency seeks $32,935.96 as an overpayment of Medicaid claims paid to the Respondent. The Petitioner also seeks an administrative fine in the amount of $1000.00. The Respondent was given the results of the audit and afforded an opportunity to respond and provide additional information to the Agency to show that the amounts billed were correct. The Respondent has presented no supplemental information to corroborate the correctness of the claims at issue.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order sustaining the Final Audit Report and finding an overpayment against the Respondent in the amount of $32,9935.96. The Final Order should also impose an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. S DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig A. Brand, Esquire Law Offices of Craig A. Brand, P.A. Grove Forest Plaza 2937 Southwest 27th Avenue, Suite 101 Miami, Florida 33133 Willis Melvin, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Craig H. Smith, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Dr. Andrew C. Agwunobi, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
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.
