Findings Of Fact In its 1969 legislative session, the Florida Legislature enacted Section 409.266, Florida Statutes, entitled "Medical Assistance for the Needy," providing the original state legislative basis and authority for Florida's entry into the Medicaid program. Section 409.266(2), Florida Statutes, as enacted, authorized the Florida Department of Social Services or any other department that the Governor might designate to: Enter into such agreement with other state agencies or any agency of the federal government and accept such duties with respect to social welfare or public aid as may be necessary to implement the provisions of subsection (1) and to qualify for federal aid including compliance with provisions of Public Law 86-778 and the "Social Security Amendments of 1965" [estab- lishing Title XIX of the Social Security Act] Section 409.266(3), Florida Statutes, as enacted, stated that: The Department is authorized and directed to prepare and operate a program and budget in order to implement and comply with the provisions of public law 86-778 and the "Social Security Amendments of 1965." No provisions of Florida law other than Section 409.266, Florida Statutes, as enacted, authorized any agency to perform any function specifically to implement the Medicaid program. The State of Florida formally commenced participation in the Medicaid program effective January 1, 1970. At all times pertinent to this controversy, respondent, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services or its predecessor agencies (referred to as "HRS"), has been and continues to be the "State Agency" identified in 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(a)(5), and charged under Section 409.266, Florida Statutes, as amended, with the formulation of a State Plan for Medical Assistance ("State Plan"), 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a, and with the ongoing responsibility for the administration of the Medicaid program in the State of Florida. Since Florida's entry into the Medicaid program in 1970, HRS has been authorized essentially to "[e]nter into such agreements with appropriate agents, other State agencies, or any agency of the Federal Government and accept such duties in respect to social welfare or public aid as may be necessary or needed to implement the provisions of Title XIX of the Social Security Act pertaining to medical assistance." Section 409.266(2)(a), Fla. Stat., as amended. HRS has never been authorized to enter into any agreements, accept any duties, or perform any functions with respect to the Medicaid program that are in contravention of or not authorized by Title XIX of the Social Security Act and implementing federal regulations and requirements. As a prerequisite for Florida's entry into the Medicaid program, HRS prepared and filed with the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare ("HEW") a State Plan, pursuant to Title XIX of the Social Security Act, and pursuant to its delegated legislative authority set forth in Section 409.266(2)(a), Florida Statutes. (In May, 1980, HEW was redesignated the United States Department of Health and Human Services, but for purposes of this action both shall be referred to as HEW.) C.W. Hollingsworth was the HRS official who had the responsibility for supervising the preparation, the filing, and for obtaining the approval of HEW of Florida's initial State Plan. Florida's initial State Plan was approved by HEW effective January 1, 1970. At the time that Florida received approval of its initial State Plan, Title XIX of the Social Security Act required state plans to provide for the payment of the reasonable cost of inpatient hospital services. At the time that Florida received approval of its initial State Plan, HEW regulations governing reimbursement for inpatient hospital services under Medicaid required the State Plan to provide for reimbursement of Medicaid inpatient hospital services furnished by those hospitals also participating in the Medicare program, applying the same standards, cost reimbursement principles, and methods of cost apportionment used in computing reimbursement to such hospitals under Medicare. 45 C.F.R. Section 250.30(a), and (b), 34 Fed. Reg. 1244 (January 25, 1969). At the time that Florida entered the Medicaid program, Medicare cost reimbursement principles in effect governing reimbursement for the cost of inpatient hospital services required payment of a participating hospital's actual and reasonable costs of providing such services to Medicare beneficiaries, and, moreover, that such payment be made on the basis of the hospital's current costs rather than upon the costs of a prior period or upon a fixed negotiated rate. 42 U.S.C. Section 1395x(v)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R. Sections 405.451(c)(2), 405.402(a) [later renumbered 42 C.F.R. Section 405.451(c)(2) and Section 405.402(a)]. Such Medicare principles and standards also provided for interim payments to be made to the hospital during its fiscal year. At the conclusions of the subject fiscal year, the hospital was required to file a cost report wherein the hospital included all of its costs of providing covered inpatient services to Medicare beneficiaries. A settlement or "retroactive adjustment" process then was required to reconcile the amount of interim payments received by the hospital during the fiscal period with its allowable costs incurred during that period. If the hospital had been overpaid during the year, it was required to refund the amount of that overpayment to the Medicare program. Conversely, if the hospital had been underpaid during the year, the Medicare program was required to make an additional payment to the hospital, retroactively, in the amount of the underpayment. 20 C.F.R. Sections 405.402(b)(2), 405.451(b)(2). Essentially the same Medicare principles and standards governing reimbursement of inpatient hospital services described in the two preceding paragraphs have been in effect at all times pertinent to this controversy. 42 C.F.R. Section 405.401, et seq. Florida's approved State Plan as of January 1, 1970, governing reimbursement of inpatient hospital services under the Medicaid program, committed HRS to reimburse hospitals that also participated in the Medicare program for their reasonable costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. The only versions of Florida's State Plan provisions that have been approved by HEW and that have governed HRS's reimbursement of inpatient hospital services prior to July 1, 1981, each commit HRS to reimburse hospitals that also participated in the Medicare program for their reasonable costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. Attached as an appendix to the recommended order is the form agreement drafted with the supervision of C.W. Hollingsworth, which has been in use from January 1, 1970, until July 1, 1981. From the inception of the Florida Medicaid program, and as a prerequisite for participation therein, a hospital has been required to execute a copy of the form agreement. A hospital may not participate in the Medicaid program without having executed such an agreement, nor may it propose any amendments thereto. The intent and effect of the form agreement is to require HRS to reimburse hospitals that also participated in the Medicare program for their reasonable costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. The form agreement requires HRS to compute a percentage allowance in lieu of the retroactive adjustments ("percentage allowances") in determining the rates that hospitals will be paid for providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients. The form agreement requires HRS to compute a new percentage allowance each year based on hospital cost trends. The meanings of the terms "allowance in lieu of retroactive adjustments" in all pertinent state plans and "percentage allowance for the year in lieu of retroactive payment adjustment" contained in the form agreement are identical. In drafting the form agreement HRS intended that the "percentage allowance for the year in lieu of retroactive payment adjustment" be set at a level sufficient to ensure that hospitals participating in the Medicaid program would be reimbursed their "reasonable costs" of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. At all times pertinent to this controversy, participating hospitals, like petitioner, have been reimbursed by HRS for inpatient hospital services provided to Medicaid patients in the following manner: Within ninety (90) days following the close of its fiscal year, the partici- pating hospital files a Form 2551 or 2552 Annual Statement of Reimbursable Costs, as applicable, with both Blue Cross of Florida, Inc., the major fiscal intermediary respon- sible for the administration of Part A of the federal Medicare program in the State of Florida, and with HRS. This document, also referred to as a "cost report" details various hospital and financial statistical data relating to the patient care activities engaged in by the hospital during the sub- ject fiscal period. Upon receipt of the participating hospital's cost report for a fiscal period, HRS makes an initial determination based upon Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards of the hospital's total allow- able inpatient costs, charges, and total patient days during the subject fiscal period, and then determines an inpatient per diem reimbursement rate for the period. To the inpatient per diem reimburse- ment rate is then added a percentage allow- ance in lieu of making any further retroactive corrective adjustments in reimbursement which might have been due the hospital applicable to the reporting period. The adjusted inpa- tient per diem reimbursement rate is applied prospectively, and remains in effect until further adjustments in the rate are required. If HRS determines that total inpa- tient Medicaid reimbursement to a partici- pating hospital during a fiscal period exceeds the hospital's allowable and rea- sonable costs of rendering such covered inpatient services applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards, then the hospital is required to remit to HRS the amount of such overpayment. If, however, HRS determines that the total inpatient Medicaid reimbursement received by a participating hospital is less than the hospital's actual and reason- able costs of rendering such covered inpa- tient services to Medicaid patients during the period applying Medicare cost reimburse- ment principles and standards, no further retroactive corrective adjustments are made; provided, however, that should an overpayment occur in a fiscal period, it may be offset and applied retroactively against an under- payment to the participating hospital which occurred during the next preceding fiscal period only. HRS has used the following "percentage allowances" in determining Medicaid reimbursement rates for inpatient hospital services: a. January 1, 1970 - June 30, 1972 . . . 12 percent July 1, 1972 - approximately March 30, 1976 . . . . . . . . . . 9 percent Approximately March 31, 1976 - June 30, 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . 6 percent Since at least January 1, 1976, HRS has not recomputed the "percentage allowance" on an annual basis. Since at least January 1, 1976, HRS has not based the "percentage allowance" that it has applied in determining Medicaid inpatient hospital reimbursement rates upon hospital cost trends. HRS has used no technical methodology based upon hospital cost trends to develop any of the "percentage allowances." At least since January 1, 1974, HRS's "percentage allowances" have been less than the corresponding average annual increases in the costs incurred by Florida hospitals of providing inpatient hospital services. Prior to March 30, 1976, all of HRS's published regulations addressing reimbursement of participating hospitals for their costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients required HRS to reimburse such hospitals in accordance with Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. In certain internal documents, Petitioner's Exhibits P-44 and P-12, HRS states that the average costs of providing inpatient hospital services in the State of Florida rose at least 18 percent during calendar year 1975. In November, 1975, the Secretary of HRS was informed by HRS officials that HRS faced a projected budgetary deficit for its fiscal year ended June 30, 1976. A decision memorandum presented options to the HRS Secretary for reducing the projected deficit. Among such options presented to and approved by the HRS Secretary was to reduce the "percentage allowance" from 9 percent to 6 percent. The reduction of the "percentage allowance" by HRS from 9 percent to 6 percent was effected in response to HRS's projected deficit, and was not based upon an analysis of hospital cost trends. HRS incorporated the 6 percent "percentage allowance" into its administrative rules which were published on March 30, 1976. In response to objections raised by the Florida Hospital Association to the reduction in the percentage allowance by HRS from 9 percent to 6 percent, HRS officials reexamined that reduction. During HRS's reexamination of its previous "percentage allowance" reduction, HRS was aware of and acknowledged the fact that Florida hospital costs were increasing at an average annual rate in excess of both the earlier 9 percent and the resulting 6 percent "percentage allowance." In a memorandum dated September 13, 1976, from HRS official Charles Hall to the Secretary of HRS, Petitioner's Exhibit P-45, Charles Hall informed the Secretary that the methods and standards then used by HRS to reimburse participating hospitals for their costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients was out of compliance with federal requirements. Charles Hall further informed the Secretary that the reason HRS had not theretofore been cited by HEW for noncompliance was the manner in which the Florida State Plan had been drafted, i.e., that the State Plan required HRS to reimburse hospitals under Medicaid for the reasonable costs that they would have been reimbursed applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. In a letter dated September 20, 1976, Petitioner's Exhibit P-31, HEW informed HRS that HEW had received a complaint from the Florida Hospital Association that the methods HRS was actually using to reimburse hospitals for the costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients were in violation of Federal Regulation 45 C.F.R. Section 250.30(a). A proposed amendment to Florida's State Plan submitted by HRS to HEW in November, 1976, Petitioner's Exhibit P-49, if approved, would have allowed HRS to reimburse hospitals for the cost of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients under methods differing from Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards (an "alternative plan"). "Alternative plans" have been permitted under applicable federal regulations since October 21, 1974. A state participating in the Medicaid program may elect to establish an "alternative plan, but may not implement such "alternative plan" without the prior written approval of HEW. Florida has not had in effect an "alternative plan" of reimbursing participating hospitals for their costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients that was formally approved by HEW at any time prior to July 1, 1981. By letter dated January 7, 1977, Petitioner's Exhibit P-32, HEW notified HRS that it had formally cited HRS for noncompliance with federal regulations governing reimbursement of inpatient hospital services under Medicaid. HRS acknowledged their noncompliance and between November, 1976, and October 30, 1977, HRS attempted to revise its proposed "alternative plan" on at least two occasions in an attempt to obtain HEW approval. In October, 1977, HRS withdrew its proposed "alternative plan" then pending with HEW. HRS then contracted with an outside consultant, Alexander Grant & Company, to assist in the formulation of a new "alternative plan" proposal. In January, 1978, Alexander Grant & Company delivered its draft of an "alternative plan" to HRS. In October, 1978, HRS submitted a draft "alternative plan" to HEW for review and comment, and HEW expected HRS to submit a formal "alternative plan" proposal to HEW for its approval by November 1, 1978. HRS did not submit the formal "alternative plan" proposal to HEW until August 12, 1980. In a letter dated February 21, 1979, from Richard Morris, HEW Regional Medicaid Director, Region IV, to United States Senator Richard Stone of Florida, Mr. Morris advised Senator Stone: For more than two years the Florida Medicaid Program has not met Federal Requirements for inpatient hospital services reimbursement. Their payment methodology under-reimburses certain hospitals year after year. The pros- pective interim per diem rate paid by Florida to hospitals includes a percentage allowance to cover increased costs during the forthcom- ing year that is consistently less than increased costs in some hospitals. If the payments are less than costs, the difference is not reimbursed. This results in underpay- ments. We have worked closely with Florida to develop an acceptable alternative system that would meet Federal requirements. To date, Florida has not implemented such a system despite having received informal HEW agreement on a draft plan developed more than a year ago. It is our understanding that this alternative plan is not a high priority item at this time. We will continue to work with HRS staff to secure Florida compliance re- garding this requirement. Petitioner's Exhibit P-46. Since August 12, 1980, HRS has submitted to HEW for its approval at least four more versions of an "alternative plan." Petitioner's Exhibits P-120, P-121, P-123, and P-152. Each of these versions was approved by the Secretary of HRS, and HRS believes each to comply with applicable Florida law. Mr. Erwin Bodo, Ph.D., was and is the HRS official responsible for the development and drafting of Exhibits P-120, P-121, P-123, and P-152. In June, 1981, HEW approved an "alternative plan" for the State of Florida (Exhibit P-152), and such "alternative plan" was implemented effective July 1, 1981. Until July 1, 1981, HRS continued to use the 6 percent "percentage allowance" to compute inpatient hospital reimbursement under Medicaid. Even after its repeal, Rule 10C-7.39(6), Florida Administrative Code, is applied by respondent in calculating reimbursement for Medicaid services provided between March 30, 1976, and July 1, 1981. From November 20, 1976, until July 1, 1981--the period in which HRS was attempting to secure HEW approval for an alternative plan--HRS was aware that the costs of inpatient hospital se vices were increasing at an average annual rate in excess of the 6 percent "percentage allowance." From September 1, 1976, through July 1, 1981, HRS has been out of compliance with its a proved State Plan provisions, and HEW regulations governing reimbursement for inpatient hospital services under Medicaid because HRS's methods for reimbursing hospitals for the cost of providing those services to Medicaid patients have resulted in a substantial number of hospitals-- including petitioner--being reimbursed at a lower rate than the hospitals would have been reimbursed applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. Since the quarter ending December 31, 1976, until July 1, 1981, HEW has formally cited HRS as being in contravention of its approved State Plan provisions, and HEW (now HHS) regulations, governing reimbursement for inpatient hospital services under Medicaid because HRS's methods for reimbursing hospitals for the cost of providing those services to Medicaid patients have resulted in a substantial number of hospitals--including petitioner--being reimbursed at a lower rate than the hospitals would have been reimbursed applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. PAN AMERICAN HOSPITAL CORPORATION Petitioner, Pan American Hospital Corporation, is a not-for-profit corporation, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. Petitioner is a tax-exempt organization as determined by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. At all times pertinent to this controversy, petitioner has operated and continues to operate a duly licensed 146-bed, short-term acute care general hospital, located at 5959 Northwest Seventh Street, Miami, Florida 33126. At all times pertinent to this controversy, petitioner has been and continues to be a duly certified provider of inpatient hospital services, eligible to participate in the Florida Medicaid program since January 27, 1974. The appendix to this recommended order is a true and correct copy of the "Participation Agreement" entered into between petitioner and HRS, whereunder, inter alia, petitioner became eligible to receive payment from HRS for covered inpatient hospital services provided to Medicaid patients. At all times pertinent to this controversy, petitioner has been a certified "provider of services" participating in the Medicare program. During the fiscal periods in dispute in this action, petitioner did provide covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, and became eligible for payment by HRS of its reasonable costs of providing such services, determined in accordance with Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. With respect to each of the fiscal periods in dispute in this action, petitioner timely filed all cost reports and other financial data with HRS or its contracting agents, including Blue Cross of Florida, Inc., to enable HRS to determine petitioner's reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients. During each of the fiscal periods in dispute in this action, to reimburse petitioner for its reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, determined in accordance with applicable Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. Such costs incurred by petitioner were reasonable, necessary, related to patient care, and less than customary charges within the meaning of those Medicare principles and standards. With respect to each of the fiscal periods in dispute, HRS and/or its contracting agent, Blue Cross of Florida, Inc., reviewed and audited the cost reports filed by petitioner, and as a result of such review and audits set or adjusted, as applicable, the Medicaid inpatient per diem reimbursement rate at which petitioner would be paid during the next succeeding fiscal period or until that rate was again adjusted. On May 3, 1976, a Notice of Program Reimbursement was issued to petitioner applicable to its fiscal year ended March 31, 1975, and setting forth the audited amount of petitioner's reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients during such period and the amount of interim Medicaid payments made to petitioner by HRS during the period in respect to those services. During its fiscal year ended March 31, 1975, petitioner received $86,469 less than its reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, and no retroactive corrective adjustment has been made in connection with such underpayment. On February 14, 1979, a Notice of Program Reimbursement was issued to petitioner applicable to its fiscal year ended March 31, 1976, and setting forth the audited amount of petitioner's reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients during such period and the amount of interim Medicaid payments made to petitioner by HRS during the period with respect to those services. During its fiscal year ended March 31, 1976, petitioner received $199,328 less than its reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, and no retroactive corrective adjustment has been made in connection with such underpayment. On September 29, 1978, a Notice of Program Reimbursement was issued to petitioner applicable to its fiscal year ended March 31, 1977, and setting forth the audited amount of petitioner's reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients during such period and the amount of interim Medicaid payments made to petitioner by HRS during the period with respect to those services. During its fiscal year ended March 31, 1977, petitioner received $6,083 less than its reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, and no retroactive corrective adjustment has been made in connection with such underpayment. On March 13, 1980, a Notice of Program Reimbursement was issued to petitioner applicable to its fiscal year ended March 31, 1978, and setting forth the audited amount of petitioner's reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients during such period and the amount of interim Medicaid payments made to petitioner by HRS during the period with respect to those services. During its fiscal year ended March 31, 1978, petitioner received $178,506 less than its reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, and no retroactive corrective adjustment has been made in connection with such underpayment. On June 30, 1981, a Notice of Program Reimbursement was issued to petitioner applicable to its fiscal year ended March 31, 1979, and setting forth the audited amount of petitioner's reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients during such period and the amount of interim Medicaid payments made to petitioner by HRS during the period with respect to those services. During its fiscal year ended March 31, 1979, petitioner received $302,347 less than its reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, and no retroactive corrective adjustment has been made in connection with such underpayment. On or about June 30, 1981, the audit of petitioner's Medicaid cost report for the period ending March 31, 1980, was concluded. A formal Notice of Program Reimbursement had not been issued at the time of the hearing. MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED Respondent contends that these proceedings should be summarily concluded "for failure to join an indispensable party," viz., the Federal Government, because it "is Respondent's intention, should any liability result from this action, to make a claim for federal financial participation as to approximately fifty-nine percent of such liability . . . [See generally] 42 U.S.C. Section 1320b-2(a)(2)." Motion to Dismiss, p. 2. This contention must fail for several reasons. Neither the Division of Administrative Hearings nor the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has the power or means to bring an unwilling party into a proceeding instituted pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (1979). At most, "the presiding officer may, upon motion of a party, or upon his own initiative enter an order requiring that the absent person be notified of the proceeding and be given an opportunity to be joined as a party of record." Rule 28-5.107, Florida Administrative Code. There exists no administrative writ for joining a non-petitioning party in a substantial interest proceeding in the way judicial process can join a party within a court's jurisdiction in a pending judicial proceeding. The two cases respondent cites in support of its motion, Bannon v. Trammell, 118 So. 167 (Fla. 1928), and Heisler v. Florida Mortgage Title and Bonding Co., 142 So.2d 242 (Fla. 1932), are inapposite, because both cases involve judicial, not administrative proceedings. HRS does not really seek joinder of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; instead, HRS argues that the petition should be dismissed and the controversy relegated to federal court because it "believes that the Secretary [of the United States Department of Health and Human Services] will not succumb voluntarily to the jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings." 2/ Motion to Dismiss, p. 3. Participation by the Department of Health and Human Services in the present proceedings would have been welcomed, as the Hearing Officer indicated at the prehearing conference, but neither the Department itself nor either of the parties requested such participation. In any event, petitioner is seeking additional reimbursement from respondent HRS, not from any federal agency. Medicaid providers like petitioner do not receive any funds directly from the Department of Health and Human Services. Since "[t]he contracts involved are clearly between the hospitals and [H]RS [, n]o third party requirement appears," Montana Deaconess Hospital v. Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, 538 P.2d 1021, 1024 (Mont. 1975), and the Department of Health and Human Services is not an indispensable party to administrative proceedings arising out of contracts between HRS and Medicaid providers. HRS protests that it might find itself making additional reimbursement to petitioner, yet be deprived of the federal component of such expenditures. See 42 U.S.C. Section 1396b. This prospect is an unlikely one in view of the fact that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has repeatedly cited HRS for noncompliance because of under-reimbursements to Medicaid providers. If the Federal Government fails to contribute to any additional reimbursement, it would not be for want of a forum in which HRS could present its claim. There are administrative mechanisms within the Department of Health and Human Services, including its Grant Appeals Board. See 42 U.S.C. Section 1116(d). After exhaustion of administrative remedies, HRS would have access to the courts, if necessary. See Georgia v. Califano, 446 F. Supp. 404 (N.D. Ga. 1977). There is no danger that HRS will be deprived of an opportunity to litigate any question about federal contribution because the United States Department of Health and Human Services is not a party to the present proceedings. MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Petitioner's motion for partial summary judgment was amended ore tenus at the final hearing to delete "and FYE March 31, 1981," on page 1 of the motion, after leave to amend was granted, without objection by respondent. As a technical matter, the motion is a misnomer, since substantial interest proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings eventuate in recommended orders, not judgments. But, petitioner's contention that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact is well founded. The parties have so stipulated. (T. 70; Mr. Weiss's letter of November 12, 1981.) At the time the petition was filed, the parties contemplated numerous factual disputes which, however, had all been resolved by the time of final hearing through the commendable efforts of counsel. In the absence of a disputed issue of material fact, the Administrative Procedure Act provides for informal proceedings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes (1979), "[u]nless otherwise agreed." Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (1979). On December 7, 1981, the parties filed their Stipulation and Agreement to proceed pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1979), notwithstanding the absence of any factual dispute. DISPUTE COGNIZABLE In the present case, as in Graham Contracting, Inc. v. Department of General Services, 363 So.2d 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), there "can be no doubt that the Department's contract . . . calls for agency action which potentially affects . . . substantial interests," 363 So.2d at 812, of the petitioning contractor. Cf. Solar Energy Control, Inc. v. State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 377 So.2d 746 (Fla 1st DCA 1979) (reh. den. 1980) (disappointed bidder substantially affected). See Section 120.52(10)(a), Florida Statutes (1979). In Graham Contracting, Inc. v. Department of General Services, 363 So.2d 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), the petitioner sought "additional money and construction time under its contract," 363 So.2d at 813, with a state agency. The court found "no difficulty . . . with sovereign immunity," 363 So.2d at 813, and held that a contractor with a state agency could invoke the Administrative Procedure Act in order to enforce its contract, even though the contract purported to establish another method for settling the contract dispute. A clause in the contract at issue in the Graham Contracting case contemplated agency action outside the parameters of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, in resolving certain disputes under the contract. In contrast, each of the successive contracts on which petitioner predicates its claim in the present case contains the following provision: "The hospital agrees to comply with the rules, policies, and procedures required by [HRS's] Division of Family Services for this program." Among the rules thus incorporated by reference into the contracts between petitioner and respondent is Rule 10C-7.35, Florida Administrative Code, which provides: An official representative of a facility participating in Medicaid, . . . or . . . representative, may appeal Medicaid Program policy, procedure, or administrative rulings whenever the provider feels there has been an unfair, illegal or inappropriate action by the Department affecting them or their facility. (1) Provider Appeals The Administrative Procedures [sic] Act, Chapter 120 F.S., provides for provider appeals and hearings, which are conducted by the Division of Administrative Hearings in the Department of Administration. The spe- cific rule relative to the appeal and hearing process is Chapter 28-3 [sic] of the Florida Administrative Rules. . . Since, by reference to Rule 10C-7.35, Florida Administrative Code, the contract in the present case incorporates Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, the applicability of the Administrative Procedure Act is even clearer here than in the Graham Contracting case. THE MERITS The parties have stipulated that petitioner has been reimbursed by respondent less than its reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services over the time period in question. Under-reimbursement of this kind is not authorized by Section 409.266, Florida Statutes, which incorporates the federal statutory requirement that hospitals which, like petitioner, provide Medicaid services be reimbursed by respondent for reasonable costs incurred, in accordance with an approved State Plan, and not some lesser amount. 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(a)(13)(B), Pub. L. 89-97, Section 121(a) redesignated 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(a)(13)(D), Pub. L. 90-248, Section 224(a). All Florida "State Plan provisions . . . approved by HEW and . . . govern[ing] HRS's reimbursement of inpatient hospital services prior to July 1, 1981, commit HRS to reimburse hospitals [like petitioner] that also participated in the Medicare program for their reasonable costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards." Prehearing Stipulation, Paragraph 19. The record is clear. Respondent consistently reimbursed petitioner less than its reasonable costs of providing inpatient hospital services in order to cut its own expenses and in doing so jeopardized the entire Medicaid program. This cannot be condoned, even though respondent acted under color of law, viz., Rule 10C-7.39(6), Florida Administrative Code [now repealed and declared invalid; see Pan American Hospital Corporation v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, No. 81-1480R (DOAH; December 4, 1981)], and even though a lack of money or, at least, an apparent shortage was the reason for respondent's parsimony. The question remains, however, whether this dereliction on respondent's part should inure to the benefit of petitioner; and the answer turns on the construction of the agreement between the parties attached as an appendix to this order. Petitioner argues cogently that public policy has clearly been enunciated by statute to be full reimbursement for costs reasonably incurred by Medicaid providers in furnishing covered services. There can be no clearer expression of public policy than a statute duly enacted; and the reasons behind the full reimbursement policy are themselves compelling: to deal fairly with the providers, not only for fairness sake, but also to assure their participation in the program, and to remove any temptation to give indigent patients substandard care, inter alia. But, there is surely an overriding public policy requiring that a contractor with state government who voluntarily agrees to forego a claim against the public fisc be held to that agreement in administrative proceedings like these. The form agreement between petitioner and respondent, which they renewed annually, states: "It is understood that reimbursement will be made on the basis of an interim payment plan in the form of a per diem cost rate, plus a percentage allowance for the year in lieu of retroactive payment adjustment. However, . . . in the event the hospital did not receive its audited reasonable costs in the year prior to the current year then the hospital may deduct from the refund the prior year deficiency." (Emphasis supplied.) The agreement thus contemplated under-reimbursement and specified the method for recoupment, if there was to be any. Any "retroactive payment adjustment," as the result of administrative proceedings or otherwise, is specifically ruled out. Elsewhere in the parties' agreement is found this language: [T]he fiscal responsibility of [respondent's] Division of Family Services is subjected [sic] to the appropriation and availability of funds to the Medicaid program . . . by the state legislature every year." The terms of the agreement make clear that under-reimbursement is not in itself a breach. Respondent's failure to compute annually a "new percentage . . . based on hospital cost trends" was attributable to a shortage of funds; and the agreement provided that respondent's "fiscal responsibility" was subject to just such a shortage. In sum, provisions of the agreement petitioner voluntarily entered into with respondent operate in much the same way as a liquidated damages clause and preclude the relief petitioner seeks. Petitioner's invocation of the parol evidence rule is unavailing. Even if the stipulated facts outside the four corners of the form agreement are looked to, the course of dealing between these parties buttresses the construction outlined above. The fact that respondent may have settled a case it litigated against another hospital in some other way, as asserted by petitioner, is technically irrelevant.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny the prayer of the petitioner for additional reimbursement. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 1981.
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 The issues in this case are whether Respondent applied the proper reimbursement principles to Petitioners' initial Medicaid rate setting, and whether elements of detrimental reliance exist so as to require Respondent to establish a particular initial rate for Petitioners' facilities.
Findings Of Fact There are nine Petitioners in this case. Each of them is a long-term health care facility (nursing home) operated under independent and separate legal entities, but, generally, under the umbrella of a single owner, Tzvi "Steve" Bogomilsky. The issues in this case are essentially the same for all nine Petitioners, but the specific monetary impact on each Petitioner may differ. For purposes of addressing the issues at final hearing, only one of the Petitioners, Madison Pointe Rehabilitation and Health Center (Madison Pointe), was discussed, but the pertinent facts are relevant to each of the other Petitioners as well. Each of the Petitioners has standing in this case. The Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by each Petitioner was timely and satisfied minimum requirements. In September 2008, Bogomilsky caused to be filed with AHCA a Change of Licensed Operator ("CHOP") application for Madison Pointe.1 The purpose of that application was to allow a new entity owned by Bogomilsky to become the authorized licensee of that facility. Part and parcel of the CHOP application was a Form 1332, PFA. The PFA sets forth projected revenues, expenses, costs and charges anticipated for the facility in its first year of operation by the new operator. The PFA also contained projected (or budgeted) balance sheets and a projected Medicaid cost report for the facility. AHCA is the state agency responsible for licensing nursing homes in this state. AHCA also is responsible for managing the federal Medicaid program within this state. Further, AHCA monitors nursing homes within the state for compliance with state and federal regulations, both operating and financial in nature. The AHCA Division of Health Quality Assurance, Bureau of Long-Term Care Services, Long-Term Care Unit ("Long-Term Care Unit") is responsible for reviewing and approving CHOP applications and issuance of an operating license to the new licensee. The AHCA Division of Health Quality Assurance, Bureau of Health Facility Regulation, Financial Analysis Unit ("Financial Analysis Unit") is responsible for reviewing the PFA contained in the CHOP application and determining an applicant's financial ability to operate a facility in accordance with the applicable statutes and rules. Neither the Long-Term Care Unit nor the Financial Analysis Unit is a part of the Florida Medicaid Program. Madison Pointe also chose to submit a Medicaid provider application to the Medicaid program fiscal agent to enroll as a Medicaid provider and to be eligible for Medicaid reimbursement. (Participation by nursing homes in the Medicaid program is voluntary.) The Medicaid provider application was reviewed by the Medicaid Program Analysis Office (MPA) which, pursuant to its normal practices, reviewed the application and set an interim per diem rate for reimbursement. Interim rate-setting is dependent upon legislative direction provided in the General Appropriations Act and also in the Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (the Plan). The Plan is created by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS (formerly known as the Health Care Financing Administration) is a federal agency within the Department of Health and Human Services. CMS is responsible for administering the Medicare and Medicaid programs, utilizing state agencies for assistance when appropriate. In its PFA filed with the Financial Analysis Unit, Madison Pointe proposed an interim Medicaid rate of $203.50 per patient day (ppd) as part of its budgeted revenues. The projected interim rate was based on Madison Pointe's expected occupancy rate, projected expenses, and allowable costs. The projected rate was higher than the previous owner's actual rate in large part based on Madison Pointe's anticipation of pending legislative action concerning Medicaid reimbursement issues. That is, Madison Pointe projected higher spending and allowable costs based on expected increases proposed in the upcoming legislative session. Legislative Changes to the Medicaid Reimbursement System During the 2007 Florida Legislative Session, the Legislature addressed the status of Medicaid reimbursement for long-term care facilities. During that session, the Legislature enacted the 2007 Appropriations Act, Chapter 2007-72, Laws of Florida. The industry proposed, and the Legislature seemed to accept, that it was necessary to rebase nursing homes in the Medicaid program. Rebasing is a method employed by the Agency periodically to calibrate the target rate system and adjust Medicaid rates (pursuant to the amount of funds allowed by the Legislature) to reflect more realistic allowable expenditures by providers. Rebasing had previously occurred in 1992 and 2002. The rebasing would result in a "step-up" in the Medicaid rate for providers. In response to a stated need for rebasing, the 2007 Legislature earmarked funds to address Medicaid reimbursement. The Legislature passed Senate Bill 2800, which included provisions for modifying the Plan as follows: To establish a target rate class ceiling floor equal to 90 percent of the cost- based class ceiling. To establish an individual provider- specific target floor equal to 75 percent of the cost-based class ceiling. To modify the inflation multiplier to equal 2.0 times inflation for the individual provider-specific target. (The inflation multiplier for the target rate class ceiling shall remain at 1.4 times inflation.) To modify the calculation of the change of ownership target to equal the previous provider's operating and indirect patient care cost per diem (excluding incentives), plus 50 percent of the difference between the previous providers' per diem (excluding incentives) and the effect class ceiling and use an inflation multiplier of 2.0 times inflation. The Plan was modified in accordance with this legislation with an effective date of July 1, 2007. Four relevant sentences from the modified Plan are relevant to this proceeding, to wit: For a new provider with no cost history resulting from a change of ownership or operator, where the previous provider participated in the Medicaid program, the interim operating and patient care per diems shall be the lesser of: the class reimbursement ceiling based on Section V of this Plan, the budgeted per diems approved by AHCA based on Section III of this Plan, or the previous providers' operating and patient care cost per diem (excluding incentives), plus 50% of the difference between the previous providers' per diem (excluding incentives) and the class ceiling. The above new provider ceilings, based on the district average per diem or the previous providers' per diem, shall apply to all new providers with a Medicaid certification effective on or after July 1, 1991. The new provider reimbursement limitation above, based on the district average per diem or the previous providers' per diem, which affects providers already in the Medicaid program, shall not apply to these same providers beginning with the rate semester in which the target reimbursement provision in Section V.B.16. of this plan does not apply. This new provider reimbursement limitation shall apply to new providers entering the Medicaid program, even if the new provider enters the program during a rate semester in which Section V.B.16 of this plan does not apply. [The above cited sentences will be referred to herein as Plan Sentence 1, Plan Sentence 2, etc.] Madison Pointe's Projected Medicaid Rate Relying on the proposed legislation, including the proposed rebasing and step-up in rate, Madison Pointe projected an interim Medicaid rate of $203.50 ppd for its initial year of operation. Madison Pointe's new projected rate assumed a rebasing by the Legislature to eliminate existing targets, thereby, allowing more reimbursable costs. Although no legislation had been passed at that time, Madison Pointe's consultants made calculations and projections as to how the rebasing would likely affect Petitioners. Those projections were the basis for the $203.50 ppd interim rate. The projected rate with limitations applied (i.e., if Madison Pointe did not anticipate rebasing or believe the Plan revisions applied) would have been $194.26. The PFA portion of Madison Pointe's CHOP application was submitted to AHCA containing the $203.50 ppd interim rate. The Financial Analysis Unit, as stated, is responsible for, inter alia, reviewing PFAs submitted as part of a CHOP application. In the present case, Ryan Fitch was the person within the Financial Analysis Unit assigned responsibility for reviewing Madison Pointe's PFA. Fitch testified that the purpose of his review was to determine whether the applicant had projected sufficient monetary resources to successfully operate the facility. This would include a contingency fund (equal to one month's anticipated expenses) available to the applicant and reasonable projections of cost and expenses versus anticipated revenues.2 Upon his initial review of the Madison Pointe PFA, Fitch determined that the projected Medicaid interim rate was considerably higher than the previous operator's actual rate. This raised a red flag and prompted Fitch to question the propriety of the proposed rate. In his omissions letter to the applicant, Fitch wrote (as the fourth bullet point of the letter), "The projected Medicaid rate appears to be high relative to the current per diem rate and the rate realized in 2006 cost reports (which includes ancillaries and is net of contractual adjustments). Please explain or revise the projections." In response to the omissions letter, Laura Wilson, a health care accountant working for Madison Pointe, sent Fitch an email on June 27, 2008. The subject line of the email says, "FW: Omissions Letter for 11 CHOW applications."3 Then the email addressed several items from the omissions letter, including a response to the fourth bullet point which says: Item #4 - Effective July 1, 2007, it is anticipated that AHCA will be rebasing Medicaid rates (the money made available through elimination of some of Medicaid's participation in covering Medicare Part A bad debts). Based on discussions with AHCA and the two Associations (FHCA & FAHSA), there is absolute confidence that this rebasing will occur. The rebasing is expected to increase the Medicaid rates at all of the facilities based on the current operator's spending levels. As there is no definitive methodology yet developed, the rebased rates in the projections have been calculated based on the historical methodologies that were used in the 2 most recent rebasings (1992 and 2002). The rates also include the reestablishment of the 50% step-up that is also anticipated to begin again. The rebasing will serve to increase reimbursement and cover costs which were previously limited by ceilings. As noted in Note 6 of the financials, if something occurs which prevents the rebasing, Management will be reducing expenditures to align them with the available reimbursement. It is clear Madison Pointe's projected Medicaid rate was based upon proposed legislative actions which would result in changes to the Plan. It is also clear that should those changes not occur, Madison Pointe was going to be able to address the shortfall by way of reduced expenditures. Each of those facts was relevant to the financial viability of Madison Pointe's proposed operations. Madison Pointe's financial condition was approved by Fitch based upon his review of the PFA and the responses to his questions. Madison Pointe became the new licensed operator of the facility. That is, the Long-Term Care Unit deemed the application to have met all requirements, including financial ability to operate, and issued a license to the applicant. Subsequently, MPA provided to Madison Pointe its interim Medicaid rate. MPA advised Madison Pointe that its rate would be $194.55 ppd, some $8.95 ppd less than Madison Pointe had projected in its PFA (but slightly more than Madison Pointe would have projected with the 50 percent limitation from Plan Sentence 1 in effect, i.e., $194.26). The PFA projected 25,135 annual Medicaid patient days, which multiplied by $8.95, would equate to a reduction in revenues of approximately $225,000 for the first year of operation.4 MPA assigned Madison Pointe's interim Medicaid rate by applying the provisions of the Plan as it existed as of the date Madison Pointe's new operating license was issued, i.e., September 1, 2007. Specifically, MPA limited Madison Pointe's per diem to 50 percent of the difference between the previous provider's per diem and the applicable ceilings, as dictated by the changes to the Plan. (See Plan Sentence 1 set forth above.) Madison Pointe's projected Medicaid rate in the PFA had not taken any such limitations into account because of Madison Pointe's interpretation of the Plan provisions. Specifically, that Plan Sentence 3 applies to Madison Pointe and, therefore, exempts Madison Pointe from the new provider limitation set forth in Plan Sentences 1 and 2. However, Madison Pointe was not "already in the Medicaid program" as of July 1, 2007, as called for in Plan Sentence 3. Rather, Madison Pointe's commencement date in the Medicaid program was September 1, 2007. Plan Sentence 1 is applicable to a "new provider with no cost history resulting from a change of ownership or operator, where the previous operator participated in the Medicaid program." Madison Pointe falls within that definition. Thus, Madison Pointe's interim operating and patient care per diems would be the lesser of: (1) The class reimbursement ceiling based on Section V of the Plan; (2) The budgeted per diems approved by AHCA based on Section III of the Plan; or (3) The previous provider's operating and patient care cost per diem (excluding incentives), plus 50 percent of the difference between the previous provider's per diem and the class ceiling. Based upon the language of Plan Sentence 1, MPA approved an interim operating and patient care per diem of $194.55 for Madison Pointe. Plan Sentence 2 is applicable to Madison Pointe, because it applies to all new providers with a Medicaid certification effective after July 1, 1991. Madison Pointe's certification was effective September 1, 2007. Plan Sentence 3 is the primary point of contention between the parties. AHCA correctly contends that Plan Sentence 3 is not applicable to Petitioner, because it addresses rebasing that occurred on July 1, 2007, i.e., prior to Madison Pointe coming into the Medicaid system. The language of Plan Sentence 3 is clear and unambiguous that it applies to "providers already in the Medicaid program." Plan Sentence 4 is applicable to Madison Pointe, which entered the system during a rate semester, in which no other provider had a new provider limitation because of the rebasing. Again, the language is unambiguous that "[t]his new provider reimbursement limitation shall apply to new providers entering the Medicaid program. . . ." Madison Pointe is a new provider entering the program. Detrimental Reliance and Estoppel Madison Pointe submitted its CHOP application to the Long-Term Care Unit of AHCA for approval. That office has the clear responsibility for reviewing and approving (or denying) CHOP applications for nursing homes. The Long-Term Care Unit requires, as part of the CHOP application, submission of the PFA which sets forth certain financial information used to determine whether the applicant has the financial resources to operate the nursing home for which it is applying. The Long-Term Care Unit has another office within AHCA, the Financial Analysis Unit, to review the PFA. The Financial Analysis Unit is found within the Bureau of Health Facility Regulation. That Bureau is responsible for certificates of need and other issues, but has no authority concerning the issuance, or not, of a nursing home license. Nor does the Financial Analysis Unit have any authority to set an interim Medicaid rate. Rather, the Financial Analysis Unit employs certain individuals who have the skills and training necessary to review financial documents and determine an applicant's financial ability to operate. A nursing home licensee must obtain Medicaid certification if it wishes to participate in the program. Madison Pointe applied for Medicaid certification, filing its application with a Medicaid intermediary which works for CMS. The issuance of a Medicaid certification is separate and distinct from the issuance of a license to operate. When Madison Pointe submitted its PFA for review, it was aware that an office other than the Long-Term Care Unit would be reviewing the PFA. Madison Pointe believed the two offices within AHCA would communicate with one another, however. But even if the offices communicated with one another, there is no evidence that the Financial Analysis Unit has authority to approve or disapprove a CHOP application. That unit's sole purpose is to review the PFA and make a finding regarding financial ability to operate. Likewise, MPA--which determines the interim Medicaid rate for a newly licensed operator--operates independently of the Long-Term Care Unit or the Financial Analysis Unit. While contained within the umbrella of AHCA, each office has separate and distinct duties and responsibilities. There is no competent evidence that an applicant for a nursing home license can rely upon its budgeted interim rate--as proposed by the applicant and approved as reasonable by MPA--as the ultimate interim rate set by the Medicaid Program Analysis Office. At no point in time did Fitch tell Madison Pointe that a rate of $203.50 ppd would be assigned. Rather, he said that the rate seemed high; Madison Pointe responded that it could "eliminate expenditures to align them with the available reimbursement." The interim rate proposed by the applicant is an estimate made upon its own determination of possible facts and anticipated operating experience. The interim rate assigned by MPA is calculated based on the applicant's projections as affected by provisions in the Plan. Furthermore, it is clear that Madison Pointe was on notice that its proposed interim rate seemed excessive. In response to that notice, Madison Pointe did not reduce the projected rate, but agreed that spending would be curtailed if a lower interim rate was assigned. There was, in short, no reliance by Madison Pointe on Fitch's approval of the PFA as a de facto approval of the proposed interim rate. MPA never made a representation to Madison Pointe as to the interim rate it would receive until after the license was approved. There was, therefore, no subsequent representation made to Madison Pointe that was contrary to a previous statement. The Financial Analysis Unit's approval of the PFA was done with a clear and unequivocal concern about the propriety of the rate as stated. The approval was finalized only after a representation by Madison Pointe that it would reduce expenditures if a lower rate was imposed. Thus, Madison Pointe did not change its position based on any representation made by AHCA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, approving the Medicaid interim per diem rates established by AHCA and dismissing each of the Amended Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 2009.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner has overpaid Respondent for medical services for which he has obtained reimbursement under the Medicaid program and, if so, by how much.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed physician engaged in the practice of medicine in Florida. From January through November 1997, Respondent worked a couple of hours each morning at the Summit Clinic in Miami before seeing patients at his own office. At the Summit Clinic, Respondent administered intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) to adult Medicaid patients who were infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Petitioner paid the Summit Clinic, which was using Respondent's Medicaid provider number, for these and other medical services. Petitioner now claims that these IVIG services were not medically necessary, and, pursuant to its "pay-and-chase" policy, Petitioner seeks repayment from Respondent. In general, the administration of IVIG transfers antibodies contained in globulin to protect the recipient from various infectious microorganisms. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the marketing of IVIG for the treatment of persons with certain clinical conditions, such as idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, Kawasaki disease, and pediatric HIV infection. However, the FDA has not approved the marketing of IVIG for the treatment of adult HIV infection. The use of a drug to treat conditions for which the FDA has not issued its approval is known as an off-label use. Some off-label uses are medically effective and prevalent, but remain unapproved by the FDA because the drug manufacturer cannot feasibly conduct expensive clinical trials generally necessary to obtain FDA marketing approval. Despite the absence of such clinical trials, not all off-label uses are experimental. In the 20 years that IVIG has been commercially available in the United States, medical researchers and practitioners have uncovered evidence in support of important off-label uses of IVIG. For instance, a common and effective off-label use of IVIG is for the treatment of Guillain-Barré syndrome. According to the University HealthSystem Consortium, the FDA estimates that 50-70 percent of IVIG use is off-label, but as much as half of the off-label use finds little, if any, support by clinical studies. This case raises the question of the medical necessity of the off-label use of IVIG for the treatment of HIV-infected adults. Unlike adult-onset HIV infections, pediatric HIV infections result in systemic immune deficiencies because the children's immune systems never develop normally. In HIV- infected children, IVIG relieves the effects of these systemic immune deficiencies by preventing serious bacterial infections. For these reasons, the FDA has approved the use of IVIG for HIV- infected children. By letter dated July 31, 2001, Petitioner advised Respondent that it had reviewed various Medicaid claims submitted under his provider number. As relevant to this case, the July 31 letter disallows Medicaid reimbursement for the use of IVIG on HIV-infected adults. Stating that this use of IVIG is not "indicated" and is "investigational," the letter adds: "Medicaid policy prohibits payment for experimental procedures or non-FDA approved drugs and requires that all services rendered to Medicaid recipients be medically necessary." Chapter 1 of the Physician Coverage and Limitations Handbook (Handbook) states: "Medicaid reimburses for services that are determined medically necessary . . .. In addition, the services must meet the following criteria: the services must be individualized, specific, consistent with symptoms or confirmed diagnosis of the illness or injury under treatment, and not in excess of the recipient's needs; the services cannot be experimental or investigational; the services must reflect the level of services that can be safely furnished, and for which no equally effective and more conservative or less costly treatment is available statewide; and the services must be furnished in a manner not primarily intended for the convenience of the recipient, the recipient's caretaker, or the provider. The Handbook also provides: "Medicaid does not reimburse for non-FDA approved medications. Medicaid does not reimburse procedures that are experimental or when non-FDA approved medications are included in the procedures." The Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook (Reimbursement Handbook) defines "experimental or clinically unproven procedures" as: "Those newly developed procedures undergoing systematic investigation to establish their role in treatment or procedure that are not yet scientifically established to provide beneficial results for the condition for which they are being used." Although not directly applicable to the Medicaid program, Section 2049.4 of Chapter II, Part 3, Health Care Financing Administration Carriers Manual (HCFA Manual) states, in part: Use of the drug or biological must be safe and effective and otherwise reasonable and necessary. . . . Drugs or biologicals approved for marketing by the [FDA] are considered safe and effective for purposes of this requirement when used for indications specified on the labeling. Therefore, you may pay for the use of an FDA approved drug or biological if: It was injected on or after the date of the FDA's approval; It is reasonable and necessary for the individual patient; and All other applicable coverage requirements are met. * * * An unlabeled use of a drug is a use that is not included as an indication on the drug's label as approved by the FDA. FDA approved drugs used for indications other than what is indicated on the official label may be covered under Medicare if the carrier determines the use to be medically accepted, taking into consideration the major drug compendia, authoritative medical literature and/or accepted standards of medical practice. . . . Accordingly, the Florida Medicare Local Medical Review Policy manual recognizes the use of IVIG for pediatric HIV infections, but warns: "IVIG is not indicated for use in adult HIV patients " Except for the administration of IVIG, Respondent provided state-of-the-art services to HIV-infected adults. The present record contains scant medical evidence of the effectiveness of IVIG in treating HIV-infected adults. Against considerable evidence questioning the medical necessity of IVIG in treating HIV-infected adults, Respondent offered undocumented anecdotal evidence of successful use of IVIG among his adult patients and two synopses of undisclosed preliminary data suggesting effectiveness of IVIG in HIV-infected adults. Respondent did not effectively oppose Petitioner's explanation for the differences in IVIG's effectiveness in treating adults and children, nor did Respondent offer any rationale for his claim of IVIG's effectiveness in HIV-infected adults. On this record, Petitioner has demonstrated that the use of IVIG to treat HIV-infected adults is not effective and, thus, not medically necessary.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order ordering Respondent to reimburse the Medicaid program $74,100.04 in overpayments for services that were not medically necessary. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Anthony L. Conticello, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Louise T. Jeroslow Law Offices of Louise T. Jeroslow 6075 Sunset Drive, Suite 201 Miami, Florida 33143
Findings Of Fact Petitioner GLADES HEALTH PLAN, INC., (GLADES) is a for-profit corporation with offices in Belle Glade, Florida. GLADES was formed for the purpose of applying for and obtaining a contract with the State of Florida for a Medicaid Prepaid Health Plan. Respondent, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, (AHCA), is the agency of the State of Florida statutorily responsible for the administration of the Florida Medicaid prepaid health plan program. On October 5, 1994, GLADES filed a Medicaid prepaid health plan contract application with AHCA. In December of 1994, a series of newspaper articles were published which raised concerns regarding the quality of health care and service provided by Medicaid prepaid health plans in Florida. In response to these concerns, AHCA, beginning in the latter part of December of 1994, implemented a number of administrative changes, and also undertook a comprehensive review to assess the quality of health care and service provided by existing Medicaid prepaid health plans. In order to accomplish this comprehensive review, AHCA redirected all of the agency's managed care staff to conduct a survey of the assessment of the quality of health care and services provided by the existing Medicaid prepaid health plans. Because AHCA's managed care staff was redirected to conduct this comprehensive review of the existing Medicaid prepaid health plans, there were insufficient staff available to review Medicaid prepaid health plan contract applications. AHCA was also concerned with contracting with additional health plans until the assessment of the existing plans was completed. AHCA accordingly placed a temporary moratorium on the consideration of applications for Medicaid prepaid health plan contracts until the completion of the comprehensive review. The purpose of the agency's comprehensive review of existing health plans and imposition of a temporary moratorium on pending contract applications for new health plans was to assess the quality of care and service of the existing Florida Medicaid prepaid health plan program, and to develop in-house agency policies to address problems identified by agency staff conducting the comprehensive review. On December 30, 1994, James M. Barclay, vice-president of GLADES, received a letter from AHCA relating to another organization with which he is affiliated, Heartland Healthcare, Inc., which like GLADES, had filed a Medicaid prepaid health plan contract application that was pending with AHCA. The December 30, 1994 letter from AHCA to Barclay recited AHCA's concern with the quality of health care and service provided by existing Medicaid prepaid health plans. The letter further stated that due to the implementation of administrative changes, and the need for agency staff to be committed to the comprehensive review of existing Medicaid prepaid health plans, AHCA had imposed a moratorium on the consideration of Medicaid Prepaid Health Plan contract applications to last approximately sixty to ninety days. GLADES did not receive a letter, or other communication from AHCA notifying GLADES of AHCA's imposition of a temporary moratorium on the consideration of its Medicaid prepaid health plan contract application, and no action was taken by AHCA with regard to the GLADES' contract application during this period. Upon completion of the agency's comprehensive review of existing Medicaid prepaid health plans, AHCA, in the spring of 1995, discontinued the moratorium on consideration of Medicaid prepaid health plan contract applications. In processing Medicaid prepaid health plan contract applications subsequent to the discontinuation of the moratorium, AHCA determined not to contract with any prepaid health plan unless the plan was a public entity, or commercially #licensed under the provisions of Chapter 641, Florida Statutes. The basis for AHCA's decision in this regard was that the agency's comprehensive review of Medicaid prepaid health plans indicated that the existing commercially licensed Medicaid prepaid health plans provided a better quality of care to Medicaid recipients than the health plans that were not commerically licensed. On September 13, 1995, AHCA filed with the Department of State, Bureau of Administrative Code, proposed rules amending Rule 59G-8.100, Florida Administrative Code. The proposed rule amendments set out criteria for AHCA's consideration of Medicaid prepaid health plan contract applications. The criteria include commercial licensure under Chapter 641, Florida Statutes, managed care accreditation, prior health care experience, and need for managed care services. Under the proposed rule amendments, failure to meet such criteria, including commercial licensure, is grounds for denial of a Medicaid prepaid health plan contract application. AHCA has not promulgated or instituted proceedings to promulgate rules regarding the temporary moratorum imposed in this case. GLADES is not commercially licensed under the provisions of Chapter 641, Florida Statutes. Subsequent to the discontinuation of the moratorium, AHCA has taken no action with regard to GLADES' Medicaid prepaid health plan contract application. Because GLADES is not commercially licensed, AHCA presently considers the GLADES' Medicaid prepaid health plan contract application inactive. AHCA has not written, published or otherwise made a formal statement of agency policy to the effect that Medicaid prepaid health plan contracts are not licenses as that term is defined in Section 120.52(9), Florida Statutes. AHCA has not promulgated or instituted proceedings to promulgate rules to the effect that Medicaid prepaid health plan contracts are not licenses.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was overpaid by the Medicaid program as indicated in Respondent's Final Agency Audit Report dated June 20, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Henson was an authorized Medicaid provider during the audit period of January 1, 1998 through September 30, 2000.1 During the audit period, Dr. Henson had been issued Medicaid provider number 0467243-00.2 No dispute exists that, during the audit period, Dr. Henson had a valid Medicaid Provider Agreement(s) with AHCA.3 During the audit period, Dr. Henson was employed by Latin Quarter Medical Center, located at 855 Southwest 8th Street, Miami, Florida, at which he treated Medicaid recipients. Dr. Henson had been a surgeon but had suffered a stroke in December 1997, which caused him to be incapable of continuing to practice as a surgeon. He agreed to become employed with Latin Quarter Medical Center to work at its new clinic and to receive compensation for his services every two weeks. Latin Quarter Medical Center's patients were suffering from AIDS. Dr. Henson agreed to several terms and conditions in executing a Medicaid Provider Agreement (Agreement) with AHCA. Those terms and conditions included the following: Quality of Service. The provider agrees to provide medically necessary services or goods . . . agrees that services and goods billed to the Medicaid program must be medically necessary . . . The services and goods must have been actually provided to eligible Medicaid recipients by the provider prior to submitting the claim. Compliance. The provider agrees to comply with all local, state and federal laws, rules, regulation, licensure laws, Medicaid bulletins, manuals, handbooks and Statements of Policy as they may be amended from time to time. Term and signatures This provider agreement . . . shall remain in effect until July 1, 1999, unless otherwise terminated. . . . Provider Responsibilities. The Medical provider shall: * * * (b) Keep and maintain . . . all medical and Medicaid related records as the Agency may require and as it determines necessary; make available for state and federal audits for five years, complete and accurate medical . . . records that fully justify and disclose the extent of the goods and services rendered and billings made under the Medicaid. . . . The Agreement was signed by Dr. Henson in 1996. In a Noninstitutional Professional and Technical Medicaid Provider Agreement, Dr. Henson agreed to terms and conditions including the following: The provider agrees to keep complete and accurate medical . . . records that fully justify and disclose the extent of the services rendered and billings made under the Medicaid program . . . . The provider agrees that services or goods billed to the Medicaid program must be medically necessary . . . and the services and goods must have been actually provided to eligible Medicaid recipients by the provider prior to submitting a claim. The provider agrees to submit Medicaid claims in accordance with program policies and that payment by the program for services rendered will be based on the payment methodology in the applicable Florida Administrative Rule. . . . * * * 8. The provider and the Department [Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services] agree to abide by the provisions of the Florida Administrative Code, Florida Statutes, policies, procedures, manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program and Federal laws and regulations. The Agreement was signed by Dr. Henson in 1988. AHCA audited certain of Dr. Henson's Medicaid claims pertaining to services rendered between January 1, 1998 and September 30, 2000. By Preliminary Agency Audit Report (PAAR) dated April 12, 2001, AHCA notified Dr. Henson that, after a physician consultant with a specialty in infectious disease reviewed the Medical claims and medical records provided by Dr. Henson, a preliminary determination was made that certain claims in the amount of $124,556.83 were not covered by Medicaid. After the issuance of the PAAR, no further documentation was submitted by Dr. Henson to AHCA. As a result, AHCA issued a FAAR dated June 20, 2001, upholding the overpayment of $124,556.83. The FAAR indicated, among other things, that the documentation provided by Dr. Henson supported a lower level of office visit than the one billed and for which payment was received and, therefore, the difference between the payment for the appropriate level of service and the amount actually paid was an overpayment; that some of Dr. Henson's medical records failed to contain documentation for services which were billed and for which payment was made and, therefore, the payments for the inappropriate documentation was an overpayment; that some of the services rendered were inappropriately coded and the difference between payment for the proper code and the inappropriate code was an overpayment; and that some of the services for which billing was made and payment received were not medically necessary and those services were disallowed and were, therefore, an overpayment. The FAAR further provided how the overpayment was calculated, indicating, among other things, that a sample of 30 recipients of the 2936 claims submitted by Dr. Henson were reviewed for the period from January 1, 1998 through September 30, 2000; that a statistical formula for cluster sampling, with the formula being presented, was used; that the statistical formula was generally accepted; and that the statistical formula showed an overpayment in the amount of $124,556.83, with a 95 percent probability of correctness. The majority of the overpayment was due to denied claims for intravenous infusions of multi-vitamins, epogen and nupogen to adult HIV/AIDS patients. AHCA's representative primarily responsible for handling the audit of Dr. Henson was Sharon Dewey, a registered nurse employed in the Medicaid Program Integrity (MPI) division of AHCA. Nurse Dewey conducted an audit of Medicaid payments only under Dr. Henson's Medicaid Provider number. An on-site visit of Dr. Henson's office was made by Nurse Dewey. During the on-site visit, she provided Dr. Henson with a questionnaire, which was completed by her and signed by Dr. Henson, and which indicated that Dr. Henson was the only Medicaid Provider at the office at which he was located, Latin Quarter Medical Center, 855 Southwest 8th Street, Miami, Florida. At the on-site visit, Dr. Henson provided all of the medical documentation and medical recipient records for the audit period involved. All the Medicaid claims for the medical recipients were paid Medicaid claims originating only from Dr. Henson's Medical Provider number. Dr. Henson made available and provided to AHCA or AHCA's representatives any and all required Medicaid-related records and information pertaining to the audit that he had in his possession.4 He never refused to allow access to the records or information. Having received the medical recipient records from Dr. Henson, Nurse Dewey organized the records by patient names and dates of service and provided them to Dr. Joseph W. Shands, Jr., along with a worksheet for the audited claims for each patient. Dr. Shands is an expert in infectious diseases and the treatment and management of AIDS and HIV. Dr. Shands retired in 2002, and his practice was basically the same as Dr. Henson. No objection was made at hearing that Dr. Shands met the statutory definition of "peer." § 409.9131(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1999).5 The undersigned finds Dr. Shands' testimony persuasive. Dr. Shands reviewed the medical documentation provided by Dr. Henson to AHCA. The medical documentation that he reviewed indicated that the patients were "all HIV AIDS patients." Dr. Shands reviewed the particular medications given the patients; reviewed the reasons why the medications were given; considered and made a determination as to whether a justification existed for the administration of the medication; and, based on his determination, either allowed or disallowed the claim. He made no determinations as to the actual dollar amount of services provided. After reviewing the medical records, Dr. Shands made notations on the worksheets, signed the worksheets, and returned the worksheets to Nurse Dewey. Specific instances of acute attention involved the administration of intravenous (IV) multi-vitamins, epogen, nupogen, and Intravenous Immunoglobulin (IVIG). As to the IV of multi-vitamins, Dr. Henson prescribed this administration for almost all of his patients. Dr. Shands found that the patients were coming into the facility two to three times a week for the treatment, but he found no documented medical information to justify the use of IV multi-vitamins and determined these services were not medically necessary. In Dr. Shands' opinion an oral multi-vitamin would have been more appropriate and achieved the same result. An oral multi-vitamin is not recommended, according to Dr. Shands, where the patient is unable to digest the oral multi-vitamin. Notably, for one patient a notation was made that the patient refused pills, but a further notation indicated that Dr. Henson had prescribed the same patient pill-based medications for treatment, which negated the basis for the intravenous use. Furthermore, IV administration to an HIV/AIDS patient places the patient at an unnecessary risk of infection, which is not present with oral multi-vitamins. Dr. Henson testified that he was continuing the treatment of another physician, but he failed to make an independent medical judgment based upon his own medical findings. Further, no justification was in the medical records for the former physician's administration of IV multi-vitamins. Additionally, IV multi-vitamins were more costly than oral administration. And, with patients returning to the facility two to three times a week, the cost increased even more. Regarding epogen, Dr. Shands opined that certain administration was not medically necessary for the HIV/AIDS' patients. As to nupogen, Dr. Shands opined that certain administration was not medically necessary for the HIV/AIDS' patients. Regarding the administration of IVIG, Dr. Shands opined that the administration was not medically necessary for the HIV/AIDS' patients. As to certain office visits for the administration of IV multi-vitamins, epogen, nupogen, and IVIG, Dr. Shands opined that the office visits were unnecessary. Using the worksheets, with Dr. Shands' notations on them, together with Dr. Shands denials or reductions, Nurse Dewey calculated the overpayment associated with each of Dr. Henson's patients. Subsequently, a statistical calculation was applied by AHCA to extend the audit sample's total overall payment to all of Dr. Henson's Medicaid claims during the audit period, which resulted in a determination of an overpayment in the amount of $124,556.83. Dr. Henson suggests that his signature may have been falsified or forged on the medical records and information that he submitted to AHCA for its audit. Prior to hearing, he had an opportunity to review the medical records and information but could not identify one instance that his signature was falsified or forged. Consequently, a finding of fact is made that Dr. Henson signed the medical records and documentation provided to AHCA by him for the audit. Dr. Henson presented no expert testimony or any testimony to support the medical necessity or cost-effectiveness of the procedures that he used. Further, Dr. Henson contends that Latin Quarter Medical Center, the facility that employed him, received the Medicaid payments, not he. However, as the Medicaid Provider, he was not relieved of his responsibility to make sure that the medical procedures were medically necessary and cost-effective.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order finding that Arthur Henson, D.O., received overpayments in the Medicaid program in the amount of $124,556.83, during the audit period January 1, 1998 through September 30, 2000, and requiring Arthur Henson, D.O., to repay the overpayment amount. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 2006.
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether the agency's interpretation of its Title XIX, ICF/MR Reimbursement Plan is a rule, and if so, whether it is an invalid rule.
Findings Of Fact Friendly Village of Brevard, Inc. d/b/a Washington Square (herein, Washington Square) is an intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded (ICF/MR), located at 2055 North U.S. 1, in Titusville, Florida. Friendly Village of Orange, Inc., d/b/a Lake View Court (herein, Lake View Court), is also an ICF/MR located at 920 W. Kennedy Boulevard, in Eatonville, Florida. Both facilities are operated by Developmental Services, Inc. Both are certified ICF/MR's participating in the Florida Medicaid Program. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) is the state agency responsible for overseeing the ICF/MR Medicaid Program. Representatives of HRS and Florida's ICF/MR industry began negotiations on a new state Medicaid reimbursement plan in 1982 and 1983. The participants in the negotiations sought to remove certain cost limitations and to insure that individual facilities would receive fair reimbursement of their allowable costs. The negotiations resulted in the Title XIX ICF/MR Reimbursement Plan dated July 1, 1984 (the 1984 Plan). The 1984 Plan provides, in part, for the establishment of reimbursement rates for new ICF/MR's entering the Florida Medicaid program after January 1, 1983. Under the plan, a provider is required, prior to beginning operations, to prepare a budgeted costs report projecting what it expects to spend in allowable costs during the next year for care to its residents. HRS reviews these budgets and establishes a per diem rate, using the budgeted costs and the number of patients, arriving at a per patient, per day rate. Each month, as services are provided, the ICF/MR bills the state Medicaid program for the number of patient days times the per diem. During the period in question, cost settlement occurred at the conclusion of the budgeted period. The provider filed his cost report detailing what was actually spent in allowable costs, HRS compared that amount with the amount budgeted and settled with the provider. Washington Square entered the Florida Medicaid program on January 19, 1983; Lake View Court entered the program in February 1983. Both facilities filed cost reports for periods ending on February 29, 1984. Sometimes cost settlements occur quickly through a desk review. Other times, as here, audits are performed and settlement may occur much later. The audits of Washington Square and Lake View Court were conducted in 1985 for their initial cost reports ending February 1984. The audits were issued in April and May 1988. Those audits state that prior to July 1, 1984, the Florida Medicaid Program recognized only those interim rate settlements resulting in an overpayment. This is an interpretation of the 1984 Plan which Petitioners dispute and which, in this case, Petitioners contend is an invalid rule. ICF/MR Reimbursement plans prior to July 1, 1984, had one-way cost settlement, which meant that if the provider as overpaid, the funds had to be returned to HRS; if the facility as underpaid, it did not receive additional reimbursement. The 1984 ICF/MR Plan was changed to allow two-way cost settlement, thus allowing an underpaid provider to recover its approved costs. Petitioners claim that a proper interpretation of the 1984 Plan, especially when read with the 1985 Plan, is that two-way cost settlement is retroactive to January 1983, for new providers entering the program after January 1, 1983. HRS disagrees with that interpretation and this issue is the subject of the consolidated case, #88-2938. HRS' interpretation means that Petitioners will not be reimbursed for underpayments received during their first reporting period. The 1984 Plan was adopted as a rule by incorporation, in Rule 10C- 7.49(4)(a)2. Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Friendly Village of Brevard, Inc. d/b/a Washington Square (herein, Washington Square) is an intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded (ICF/MR), located at 2055 North U.S. 1, in Titusville, Florida. Friendly Village of Orange, Inc., d/b/a Lake View Court (herein, Lake View Court), is also an ICF/MR located at 920 W. Kennedy Boulevard, in Eatonville, Florida. Howell Branch Court is the same type of facility, located at 3664 Howell Branch Road, Winter Park, Florida. All three facilities are operated by Developmental Services, Inc. All are certified ICF/MR's participating in the Florida Medicaid Program. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) is the state agency responsible for overseeing the ICF/MR Medicaid Program. Howell Branch entered the Florida Medicaid Program in July 1982; Washington Square entered the program on January 19, 1983; and Lake View Court entered the program on February 13, 1983. Prior to beginning operations, medicaid providers were requested to submit a budgeted cost report, a projection of what the provider anticipated spending during the coming year for services to its residents. HRS received those reports and established a per diem rate based on the costs and number of patients and arrived at a per patient, per day rate. Each month as services were provided, the ICF/MR billed the state Medicaid program for the number of patient days times the per diem. During the period in question, cost settlement would occur at the conclusion of the budgeted period. The provider would file his cost report detailing what was actually spent in Medicaid-allowable costs to provide the services, HRS would compare that amount with the amount budgeted and would settle with the provider. Prior to the July 1, 1984 ICF/MR Medicaid Reimbursement Plan, if a provider were under reimbursed (incurred allowable costs in excess of reimbursement) the provider would not receive additional reimbursement in the settlement. However, if the provider received reimbursement in excess of its allowed costs, the excess had to be paid back to HRS. This is called "one-way" cost settlement. Representatives of HRS and Florida's ICF/MR industry began negotiations on a new state reimbursement plan in 1982 and 1983. The participants in the negotiations sought to remove certain cost limitations and to insure that individual facilities would receive fair reimbursement of their Medicaid- allowable costs. The negotiations resulted in the Title XIX ICF/MR Reimbursement Plan dated July 1, 1984 (the 1984 Plan). The 1984 Plan was adopted as a rule by incorporation, in Rule 10C- 7.49(4)(a)2. Florida Administrative Code. The 1984 Plan contains a two-way cost settlement method to replace the one-way settlement method described above. This means that under the 1984 Plan, providers could receive additional reimbursement during settlement if their actual allowable costs exceeded reimbursement under the per diem rate. Washington Square and Lake View Court filed budgeted cost reports for the fiscal year ending February 19, 1984. HRS performed audits of these reports in 1985. The audits were issued in April and May 1988. The audits did not apply the two-way cost settlement method described in the 1984 Plan. Petitioners claim that a proper interpretation of the 1984 Plan is that two-way cost settlement is retroactive to January 1983 for new providers entering the program after January 1, 1983. That claim is based on the following language in the 1984 Plan and subsequent 1985 Plan: For a new provider entering the program subsequent to January 1, 1983, HRS will establish the cost basis for calculation of prospective rates using the first acceptable historical cost report covering at least a 12 month period submitted by the provider. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2, the 1984 Plan, pp 29-30. For a new provider entering the program subsequent to January 1, 1983, HRS will establish the cost basis for calculation of prospective rates using the first acceptable historical cost report covering at least a 12-month period submitted by the provider. Overpayment as a result of the difference between the approved budgeted interim rate and actual costs of the budgeted item shall be refunded to HRS. Underpayment as a result of the difference between the budgeted interim rate and actual allowable costs shall be refunded to the provider. The basis for calculating prospective rates will be the first year settled cost report. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, the 1985 Plan, p. 31.) Neither the above, nor any other language in the plans indicate that the 1984 Plan would become effective for any providers prior to July 1, 1984. HRS intended that the plan be prospectively applied. Francis "Skip" Martin was employed in HRS' Medicaid Cost Reimbursement Planning and Analysis Unit and was involved in negotiating and drafting the 1984 plan for the agency. He remembers no discussions of retroactive application of the plan. Nor could Petitioners' witnesses expressly recall that the negotiations included retroactive application of the "two- way" settlement method. Instead, they were aware that the department was working with them to establish a more acceptable reimbursement plan and they assumed that retroactivity was part of the plan. (transcript pp 95-98, 126.) Skip Martin explained that the January 1, 1983 date was arrived at by working backwards from July 1, 1984, the date of the plan. The intent was to establish a cutoff point for providers entering the program as to whether they would be considered under prospective rates or be given an interim rate and still be considered a new provider when the plan was implemented. The January 1, 1983, cutoff allowed for a year's worth of reporting history plus sufficient time for the provider to compile his cost report and submit it to the department, and time for the department to have received the cost report and have it included in the calculations that would be used on July 1, 1984. ICF/MR's entering the program after January 1, 1983, would not have had sufficient cost history for rate setting, and as "new providers" would come under a separate rate setting provisions in the plan. Carlton Dyke Snipes has worked in HRS' Medicaid Cost Reimbursement Analysis Section since 1983, and in November 1985, he became the section Administrator. He explained that the language cited above from page 31 of the 1985 Plan was a clarification of the intent that the two-way cost settlement implemented on July 1, 1984, apply to new providers, as well as existing providers. The method had not been expressly addressed in the July 1, 1984 plan in that section relating to new providers. As an alternative to retroactive application of the two-way cost settlement provision in the July 1, 1984 Plan, Petitioners contend that they should be allowed a waiver of class ceilings as provided in the plan in effect in 1983. This issue was raised in this proceeding for the first time at the final hearing. The 1983 ICF/MR Medicaid Reimbursement Plan includes this provision regarding waivers: The class ceiling under paragraph c above may be exceeded provided; the period of the limits shall not exceed six (6) months. The HCFA Regional Office will be notified in writing at least 10 days in advance in all situations to which this exception is to be applied and will be advised of the rationale for the decision, the financial impact, including the proposed rate and the number of facilities and patients involved. (Petitioners' Exhibit #7, p. 15) In one case discussed at hearing, HRS granted an exemption under this provision. The facility was an ICF/MR cluster facility, Sunrise Cape Coral. The application by the facility was cleared in advance by the federal agency, Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA). The 1983 Plan is no longer in effect and was superceded by the July 1, 1984 Plan. Petitioners did not apply for a waiver when the 1983 Plan was in effect. Instead, they claim that they did not know such an opportunity existed until discovery for this proceeding uncovered the Sunrise case. The issue with regard to Petitioner's Howell Branch facility differs from the audit issues affecting Washington Square and Lake View Court addressed above. HRS' audit of Howell Branch in 1988 includes an overpayment to the facility of approximately $115,000.00. Petitioners claim that Howell Branch should not have to reimburse those funds because during a portion of the eighteen-month cost reporting period Howell Branch was underpaid for an amount which should more than offset the overpayment. According to the provisions of the reimbursement plan which was in effect during the relevant period, July 1982 (when Howell Branch opened) through December 1983, HRS cost settled based on the lesser of: class ceilings in effect during the period, actual costs, or the budgeted interim rate. Class ceilings are established by HRS for various levels of care required by ICF/MR residents. These ceilings are based on cost reports received by HRS as of each June 30 and go into effect on October 1st of each year. Howell Branch, therefore, experienced three class ceilings during its July 1982 through December 1982 reporting period. HRS applied those three cost ceiling periods to Howell Branch, rather than monthly periods, as contended by Petitioners. As described by Carlton Dyke Snipes, MRS took the average cost determined by an audit report and every rate than had been in effect during that cost reporting period and, for every period that rate was in effect, applied the lesser of the average audited cost or the budgeted rate that was paid or the ceiling that was in effect and reprocessed the claims that had been made. This resulted in the $115,000.00 overpayment. If MRS had used average costs and average rates for the entire eighteen- month period, as advocated by Petitioners, the result would have been that ceilings would be exceeded during a portion of the eighteen month period.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order denying the petitions of Washington Square, Lake View Court and Howell Branch. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 14th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-2939 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Included in Preliminary Statement. 3 through 6. Adopted in Paragraph 1. 7. Adopted in Paragraph 2. 8 through 10. Adopted in Paragraph 3. 11 and 12. Adopted in Paragraph 5. 13 and 14. Adopted in Paragraph 6. Adopted in Paragraph 7. Rejected as unnecessary. 17 and 18. Adopted in Paragraphs 8 and 9, except for the implication that two- way reimbursement applied retroactively to January 1, 1983. Adopted in part in Paragraph 9, but the retroactive application of the methodology is rejected as inconsistent with the evidence. Adopted in Paragraph 11. Adopted in part in Paragraph 10, the statement of entitlement to two-way settlement is rejected as inconsistent with the evidence. Adopted in Paragraph 15. Rejected as argument. Adopted in part in Paragraph 16, otherwise rejected as argument. Rejected as inconsistent with the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. HAS' method of cost settlement was not inappropriate. Adopted in substances in Paragraph 19. Rejected as unnecessary 29 and 30. Rejected as argument and unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in Paragraphs 2 and 3 Adopted in Paragraph 8. 4 and 5. Adopted in Paragraphs 4 and 5. Adopted in Paragraph 6. Adopted in Paragraph 10. Adopted in Paragraphs 10 and 11. Adopted in Paragraph 17. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Bittman, and Karen L. Goldsmith P.O. Box 1980 Orlando, Florida 32802 Carl Bruce Morstadt and Kenneth Muszynski 1323 Winewood Boulevard, Bldg. One Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
