Findings Of Fact The Home is licensed as an assisted living facility. It is also licensed to provide extended congregate care, limited nursing services, and limited mental health services. The Home accepted Respondent as a resident. In July 1998, Petitioner had to transport Respondent to the hospital due to an overdose of medication. Upon his return from the hospital, Respondent told Petitioner's staff that he had taken the overdose intentionally. Thereafter, the Home required Respondent to sign a mental health contract dated September 9, 1998. This contract states as follows in relevant part: Qualifications for the Home requires [sic] that a member or applicant must not be mentally ill, habitually inebriated, or addicted to the use of a controlled substance. With these requirements, I understand that to be eligible and maintain my membership in the Home, I must agree to the terms of this contract. * * * If I use alcohol or any non-prescribed drugs I understand I may be dismissed from the Home. I understand that I will allow the Veterans' Domiciliary Home of Florida to supervise the self-administering of my medications. I will take my medication as it is prescribed by the primary physician. I will only be given my full prescription at the time of my discharge. I understand upon reasonable suspicion of being under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs, I consent to testing. The Domiciliary Home staff may take a blood, saliva, or supervised urine sample to test for illegal drugs or alcohol. I authorize members of the Domiciliary staff to perform random searches of my person, vehicle, living quarters, or belongings to determine if I am using drugs or alcohol. If I refuse to allow a blood, saliva, or urine test, or search, or if I interfere in any way with the staff's performance of these duties, I may be dismissed. The Home also required Respondent to sign a Dual Diagnosis/Substance Abuse/Psychiatric (dual diagnosis) contract dated September 14, 1998. In addition to terms and conditions similar to the ones set forth above, the dual diagnosis contract provides as follows in relevant part: 10. In order to assist me in gaining freedom from alcohol and drugs, I will not use alcohol, tranquilizers, sleeping medication, over the counter medications, or any other chemical escapes which have not been prescribed by a physician. If I use alcohol or non-prescribed drugs, I understand I will be dismissed from the Home. In November 1998, one of Respondent's doctors wrote him a prescription for Ritalin. Respondent became very upset when a nurse would not administer the Ritalin to him without first checking with Petitioner's staff physician. Eventually, Respondent's primary care physician approved the administration of Ritalin together with Respondent's other medications. In January 1999, Respondent worked for Petitioner as a receptionist. After working overtime on one occasion, Respondent's speech was slurred, his eyes were dull, and his voice was horse. Petitioner's staff became suspicious that Respondent was taking medication in violation of his contracts. Respondent subsequently tested negatively for all substances except his prescribed medicines. In March 1999, Respondent violated his contracts by having a prescription for methadone filled at a drugstore and removing twenty-four of the pills from the bottle before turning the medicine over to Petitioner's staff as required by his contract. Petitioner's staff advised Respondent that he would be dismissed from the Home by letter dated March 23, 1999. Respondent subsequently requested Petitioner's Executive Director to review the decision to discharge him from the Home. By letter dated August 16, 1999, Petitioner rescinded its decision to dismiss Respondent from the Home but warned him that any further infraction would result in his immediate expulsion. On April 14, 2000, Petitioner conducted a routine facility-wide room inspection at the Home. During the course of the inspection, Petitioner found a bottle of Ephedra 250 in Respondent's room. According to the label on the bottle, Ephedra 250 is a dietary supplement that General Nutrition Corporation (GNC) markets. During the hearing, Respondent admitted that he heard about Ephedra 250 on a television show that discussed its benefits as a diet aid as well as its dangerous side effects. The label states as follows in pertinent part: WARNING: Seek advice from a health care practitioner prior to use if you are pregnant or nursing, or if you have high blood pressure, heart or thyroid disease, diabetes, difficulty in urination due to prostate enlargement, or if taking MAO inhibitor or any other prescription drug. Reduce or discontinue use if nervousness, tremor, sleeplessness, loss of appetite or nausea occur. Not intended for use by person under the age of 18. The maximum recommended dosage of Ephedrine for a healthy adult is no more than 100 mg in a 24 hour period for not more than 12 weeks. Improper use of this product may be hazardous to a person's health. Each capsule of Ephedra 250 contains 250 mg of MA Huang Extract (Ephedra sinica) or ( 15 mg of 6 percent Ephedrine). The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Ephedra 250 is an over-the-counter medication despite being labeled as a diet supplement. Ephedrine is a prescription drug in Florida unless an individual dose is less than a specified quantity. Petitioner's staff properly became concerned about Respondent's possession of Ephedra 250 because he takes numerous prescribed medications, which can have serious side effects, if taken with certain other medications. Ephedrine is one of those drugs. For instance, Respondent takes Cozaar for high blood pressure, Methadose to reduce his dependency on Percoset, and Ritalin. Persuasive evidence indicates that large doses of Ephedra can be used as a recreational drug. Respondent knew or should have known that Ephedra 250 was prohibited by his contracts with the Home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order dismissing Respondent as a resident of the Robert H. Jenkins Veterans' Domiciliary Home of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: James W. Sloan, Esquire Department of Veterans' Affairs Post Office Box 21003 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-8903 William T. Fisher 1300 Sycamore Lane, Suite 148 Lake City, Florida 32025 Lt. Col. Robin L. Higgins, Executive Director Department of Veterans' Affairs Post Office Box 31003 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-8903
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency or Petitioner) is entitled to recover from Ideal Pugh, Sr., d/b/a Services on Time, LLC (Respondent), alleged Medicaid overpayments, administrative fines, and investigative, legal, and expert witness costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration, enter a final order requiring Respondent, Ideal Pugh, Sr., d/b/a Services on Time, LLC: To repay the sum of $563,073.76, for overpayments on claims that did not comply with the requirements of Medicaid laws, rules, and provider handbooks; To pay interest on the sum of $563,073.76 at the rate of ten percent per annum from the date of the overpayment determination; To pay a fine of $1,000 for failure to furnish all Medicaid-related records within the requested timeframe; To pay a fine of $1,500 for violations of the requirements of Medicaid laws, rules, and provider handbooks; and To pay allowable costs pursuant to subsection 409.913(23)(a), Florida Statutes. If a disputed issue of material fact arises regarding the appropriate amount of those costs, the matter may be referred back to DOAH for a further recommendation regarding costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2012.
Conclusions This cause came before the Agency for Health Care Administration for issuance of a Final Order. 1. On April 8, 2013, the Agency sent a letter to the Petitioner notifying the Petitioner that it owed an overpayment in the amount of $63,378.06 to the Agency based upon an adjustment in the Petitioner’s overpayment rates (Exhibit A). On April 23, 2013, the Petitioner filed a Petition for Formal Hearing and the Agency Clerk referred the Petition for Formal Hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings for further proceedings. On May 16, 2013, the Administrative Law Judge assigned to the case entered an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction based upon a Joint Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction filed by the parties. On May 23, 2014, the Agency rescinded the overpayment letter (Exhibit B). The Agency’s rescission of the overpayment letter has rendered this matter moot. Filed August 14, 2014 9:31 AM Division of Administrative Hearings OA / CLERK P 33u Based on the foregoing, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT: Respondent’s right to a hearing in this matter has been rendered moot and the Agency’s May 11, 2013 overpayment letter is rescinded. The parties shall govern themselves accordingly. DONE AND ORDERED this > day of Avow ot , 2014 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW. A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW, WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF THE AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, AND A COPY ALONG WITH THE FILING FEE PRESCRIBED BY LAW WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Order has been furnished by U.S. or interoffice mail to the persons named below on this Ut day of ZL Lisas OC, 2014. RICHARD J. SHOOP, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 9850) 412-3630 COPIES FURNISHED TO: Douglas Lomonico Assistant General Counsel George N. Meros, Jr. GrayRobinson, P.A. Post Office Box 11189 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3189 Medicaid Program Integrity Office of the Inspector General Shawn McCauley Medicaid Contract Management Division of Medical Quality Assurance Department of Health
The Issue What amount from Petitioners’ settlement proceeds should be paid to satisfy Respondent’s Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes (2018)?1/
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts (near-verbatim) On February 13, 2017, Grace Provvedi (Mrs. Provvedi) underwent an outpatient surgical procedure. Post-surgery, a Fentanyl patch was applied to Mrs. Provvedi’s body for the management of pain. Additionally, she was discharged home with a prescription for the oral pain medicines, Lorazepam and Robaxin. Mrs. Provvedi returned for a follow-up doctor’s visit on February 15, 2017. That same day, February 15, 2017, Mrs. Provvedi went into cardiopulmonary arrest at home. She was transported to the hospital where she was ultimately diagnosed with anoxic brain injury due to pain medicine overdose. Mrs. Provvedi remained in a vegetative state until her death on March 24, 2017. Mrs. Provvedi was survived by her husband Timothy Provvedi, their four-year-old child, B.P. and an adult child, Kyle Lima. Mrs. Provvedi’s medical care related to her injury was paid by Medicaid, and AHCA through the Medicaid program provided $54,071.79 in benefits associated with Mrs. Provvedi’s injury. This $54,071.79 represented the entire claim for past medical expenses. Mrs. Provvedi’s funeral bill totaled $11,422.97 and was paid by her surviving husband. Timothy Provvedi was appointed the personal representative of the Estate of Grace Provvedi. Timothy Provvedi, as the personal representative of the Estate of Grace Provvedi, brought a wrongful death claim to recover both the individual statutory damages of Mrs. Provvedi’s surviving spouse and two surviving children, as well as the individual statutory damages of the Estate of Grace Provvedi against the doctor and physician’s group (Defendants) who prescribed the deadly combination of the Fentanyl patch and oral pain medication. Timothy Provvedi, as the personal representative of the Estate of Grace Provvedi, on behalf of Mrs. Provvedi’s surviving husband and two children, as well as on behalf of the Estate of Grace Provvedi, compromised and settled the wrongful death claim with the Defendants for the unallocated lump sum amount of $225,000. During the pendency of the wrongful death claim, AHCA was notified of the action and AHCA asserted a $54,071.79 Medicaid lien against the Estate of Grace Provvedi’s cause of action and settlement of that action. By letter, the attorney handling the wrongful death claim notified AHCA of the settlement. This letter requested AHCA to advise as to the amount AHCA would accept in satisfaction of the $54,071.79 Medicaid lien. AHCA has not filed an action to set aside, void, or otherwise dispute the wrongful death settlement. AHCA has not commenced a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910. AHCA, through the Medicaid program, spent $54,071.79 on behalf of Mrs. Provvedi, all of which represents expenditures paid for Mrs. Provvedi’s past medical expenses. No portion of the $225,000 settlement represents reimbursement for future medical expenses. The formula at section 409.910(11)(f), as applied to the entire $225,000 settlement, requires payment of the full $54,071.79 Medicaid lien and AHCA is demanding payment of $54,071.79 from the $225,000 settlement. The Petitioners have deposited the full Medicaid lien amount in an interest-bearing account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of AHCA’s rights, and this constitutes “final agency action” for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutues, pursuant to section 409.910(17). Additional Findings of Fact Mr. Provvedi, as surviving husband, and the two children of Mrs. Provvedi, suffered economic and non-economic damages. The Estate of Mrs. Provvedi suffered economic damages in the form of medical expenses resulting from the Defendant’s alleged negligence. Mrs. Provvedi’s funeral bill was paid by Mr. Provvedi. Pursuant to the Florida Wrongful Death Act, burial expenses are generally charged to the estate, unless, as in the present case, such expenses are paid by a surviving spouse and reimbursement of the same is not sought from the estate. Mrs. Provvedi, as a condition of eligibility for Medicaid, assigned to AHCA her right to recover medical expenses paid by Medicaid from liable third parties. Petitioners presented the testimony of Mr. John W. Pate, a trial attorney with the law firm of Haygood, Orr & Pearson in Irving, Texas. Mr. Pate has been a trial attorney for 14 years and he specializes in representing individuals in personal injury, medical malpractice, and wrongful death cases. Mr. Pate testified that during the last several years, his practice has focused extensively on litigating medical malpractice cases involving the wrongful administration of prescription medications, including opioids like Fentanyl, Oxycodone, Hydrocodone, and other drugs which impact an individual’s central nervous system (CNS). Such drugs are often referred to as CNS depressant drugs. Mr. Pate routinely conducts civil jury trials, and as a consequence thereof, he stays abreast of jury verdicts by reviewing jury verdict reporters and discussing cases with other trial attorneys. Although Mr. Pate is not a member of the Florida Bar, he represents injured parties in Florida which necessitates that he stays up-to-date with civil jury verdicts from the State of Florida. Mr. Pate testified that as a routine part of his practice, he makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties and credibly explained his process for making such assessments. Without objection, Mr. Pate was recognized as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Pate served as lead attorney in the litigation against the medical providers who treated Mrs. Provvedi. In his capacity as lead attorney, Mr. Pate reviewed Mrs. Provvedi’s medical records, consulted with an anesthesiology and pain management expert in North Carolina, consulted with a plastic surgery expert in Miami, met personally with Mr. Provvedi, and spoke with Mrs. Provvedi’s children. Mr. Pate, in explaining the circumstances that allegedly led to the death of Mrs. Provvedi, testified that on February 13, 2017, Mrs. Provvedi underwent an outpatient surgical procedure at a plastic surgery center. Soon after the surgery, a Fentanyl patch was applied to Mrs. Provvedi’s body for the treatment of pain. Ms. Provvedi was then discharged home with a prescription for Lorazepam and Robaxin, each of which is an oral pain medication. Mr. Pate testified that the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warns against the use of Fentanyl patches post-surgery, and also warns against the combination of a Fentanyl patch with other CNS depressant drugs, such as Lorazepam and Robaxin. Mr. Pate explained, as to his theory of legal liability against Mrs. Provvedi’s medical providers, that over time the prescribed CNS depressants accumulated in Mrs. Provvedi’s body which resulted in her being found unresponsive two days after surgery. Mrs. Provvedi was transported by EMS to the hospital, where, upon arrival, the Fentanyl patch was removed. Mrs. Provvedi was diagnosed as having suffered from an acute anoxic brain injury and respiratory failure due to a pain medication overdose. Mrs. Provvedi never regained consciousness, and one month later was discharged from the hospital to hospice care where she died on March 24, 2017. Mr. Pate’s undisputed testimony was that his investigation revealed that Mr. and Mrs. Provvedi had a loving and devoted marriage, and that it was emotionally devastating to Mr. Provvedi to watch his wife die over the course of five weeks. Mr. Pate also testified that his investigation revealed that the Provvedi’s minor son, B.P., who was five at the time of Mrs. Provvedi’s death, was profoundly affected by the loss of his mother and that Ms. Provvedi’s adult son, who lived with the Provvedis prior to and at the time of his mother’s passing, was similarly devastated by the death of his mother. Mr. Pate credibly testified that based on his training and experience, the wrongful death damages recoverable in Mrs. Provvedi’s case had a conservative value of between $3,054,071.79 to $5,054,071.79. According to Mr. Pate’s undisputed testimony, Mrs. Provvedi’s estate had a claim for damages in the amount of $54,071.79, which is the amount of medical expenses that were paid, and resulted from Mrs. Provvedi’s injury and death. Mr. Pate excluded the funeral bill from the estate’s damages because the same bill was paid by Mr. Provvedi, as surviving husband. Mr. Pate also testified that the estate likely did not have a viable claim for net accumulations because Mrs. Provvedi did not work outside of the marital home. Mr. Pate testified that a wrongful death claim was brought against the plastic surgeon that operated on Mrs. Provvedi and the surgical facility where the procedure was performed. The basis of the claim was that the doctor violated the standard of care by prescribing the Fentanyl patch to Mrs. Provvedi in clear contravention of the FDA warnings, and it was error to prescribe the other oral pain medicines in conjunction with the Fentanyl patch. Mr. Pate testified that he expected the at-fault parties to dispute causation, but ultimately the main issue was that the alleged at-fault parties had only $250,000 in insurance coverage. Mr. Pate credibly testified that expenses associated with litigating the wrongful death case would be considerable and would significantly erode any likely net recovery. Given these concerns, the decision was made to settle the case pre-suit for $225,000. Utilizing the conservative value of $3,054,071.79, the $225,000 settlement represents a recovery of only 7.367214 percent of the value of all damages. Thus, only 7.367214 percent of the $54,071.79 claim for past medical expenses was recovered in the settlement, or $3,983.58. Based on the methodology of applying the same ratio the settlement bore to the total monetary value of all the damages to the estate, $3,983.58 of the settlement represents the estate’s compensation for past medical expenses. The allocation of $3,983.58 of the settlement to the estate’s claim for past medical expenses is reasonable and rational. Petitioners have proven by a preponderance of the evidence that $3,983.58 represents the portion of the $225,000 settlement recovered to compensate the estate for medical expenses necessitated by the alleged negligence of the tortfeasors.
The Issue The issue to be determined is the amount payable to the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or Respondent) in satisfaction of its $157,983.63 Medicaid lien asserted against medical malpractice settlement proceeds received by Hunter Lamendola (Hunter), a minor, by and through his mother and natural guardian, Ashley Lamendola (Petitioner).
Findings Of Fact On June 26, 2012, Petitioner presented to the hospital with a history of contractions for six hours prior to her arrival at the hospital. She had been placed on bed rest for gestational hypertension five days prior to arriving at the hospital. When she arrived, she had hypertension. Petitioner was admitted to the labor and delivery unit at 8:33 p.m. Petitioner was placed on a fetal monitor and progressed through her course of labor. Her initial fetal monitoring showed the baby was healthy and well-oxygenated, however, throughout the course of labor, the fetal monitor exhibited signs that the baby was in significant distress. At 4:01 a.m. on June 27, 2012, Petitioner was given an epidural, and after a course of labor, Hunter was delivered at 3:47 p.m. through an operative vaginal delivery. Hunter suffered permanent and catastrophic brain damage during his birth. As a result, Hunter is unable to eat, speak, toilet, ambulate, or care for himself in any manner. Hunter’s medical care related to the delivery was paid by Medicaid. The Medicaid program through AHCA provided $157,983.63 in benefits. The Medicaid program through the Department of Health Children’s Medical Services Title XIX MMA – Pedicare (DOH), provided $26,189.66 in benefits; the Medicaid program through a Medicaid-managed care organization, known as Amerigroup Community Care (Amerigroup), provided $51,696.99 in benefits; and the Medicaid program through a Medicaid-managed care organization, known as WellCare of Florida (WellCare), provided $13,239.19 in benefits. Accordingly, the sum of these Medicaid benefits, $249,109.47, constituted Hunter’s entire claim for past medical expenses. Petitioner brought a medical malpractice action against the medical providers and staff responsible for Hunter’s care (Defendant medical providers) to recover all of Hunter’s damages, as well as her own individual damages associated with Hunter’s injuries. The medical malpractice lawsuit was settled through a series of confidential settlements totaling $10,000,000 and this settlement was approved by the Court. During the pendency of Hunter’s medical malpractice action, AHCA was notified of the action, and AHCA asserted a $157,983.63 Medicaid lien against Hunter’s cause of action and settlement of that action. AHCA, through the Medicaid program, spent $157,983.63 on behalf of Hunter, all of which represents expenditures paid for Hunter’s past medical expenses. No portion of the $157,983.63 paid through the Medicaid program on behalf of Hunter represent expenditures for future medical expenses, and Medicaid did not make payments in advance for medical care. Application of the formula set forth in section 409.910(11)(f), Florida Statutes, to Hunter’s settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $157,983.63 Medicaid lien. Petitioner has deposited the full Medicaid lien amount in an interest-bearing account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of AHCA’s rights, and this constitutes “final agency action” for purposes of chapter 120, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 409.910(17). At the final hearing, Mr. Harwin, who represented Hunter and his family in the underlying medical malpractice action, testified, and was accepted, without objection, as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Harwin is a member of several trial attorney associations, stays abreast of jury verdicts relative to birth injuries, and ascertains the value of damages suffered by injured parties as a routine part of his practice. Mr. Harwin was familiar with and explained Hunter’s catastrophic brain injury giving rise to Petitioner’s claim. He also explained that, as a result of Hunter’s injury, Hunter is blind, fed through a feeding tube, unable to control his arms, legs or head, and suffers between six to eight seizures per day. Mr. Harwin testified that Hunter’s injury has also had a devastating impact on Hunter’s mother, Ashley Lamendola. According Mr. Harwin, considering Hunter’s past medical expenses, a life care plan for Hunter’s care prepared by an economist, and the extent of non-economic damages, and in light of determinations of mock juries and a jury consultant in this case, as well as Mr. Harwin’s familiarity with jury verdicts reached in similar cases, Hunter and his mother’s damages have a value in excess of $35,000,000. Mr. Harwin’s testimony as to the value of Petitioner’s claim was credible and is accepted. Petitioner also presented the testimony of Mr. Barrett, who was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages. Mr. Barrett has been accepted as an expert in valuation of damages in a number of other Medicaid lien cases before DOAH. Mr. Barrett has been a trial attorney for 41 years, with a primary focus on plaintiff personal injury cases, including medical malpractice, medical products liability, and pharmaceutical products liability. Mr. Barrett stays abreast of jury verdicts and often makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by injured parties. After familiarizing himself with Hunter’s injuries through review of pertinent medical records and Petitioner’s exhibits, Mr. Barrett offered his opinion, based upon his professional training and experience, as well as review of comparable jury verdicts, that a conservative value of the damages suffered would be “$35,000,000 to $50,000,000.” Mr. Barrett’s testimony as to the value of Petitioner’s claim was credible and is accepted. AHCA did not call any witnesses, present any evidence as to the value of Petitioner’s claim, or propose a differing valuation of the damages. Based upon the unrebutted evidence presented by Petitioner’s experts, it is found that a conservative value of Petitioner’s claim is $35,000,000. Attorney’s fees for the underlying medical malpractice case leading to Petitioner’s $10,000,000.00 settlement totaled $4,500,000.00, with costs of $490,486.33. While the formula under section 409.910(11)(f) determines amounts distributable to Medicaid after attorney’s fees and taxable costs, there is no language in section 409.910(17)(b) suggesting that attorney’s fees or costs should be subtracted from settlement proceeds in determining whether a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated to reimburse Medicaid. Costs and attorney’s fees are not an element of Petitioner’s damages and were not subtracted from the settlement proceeds in determining whether a lesser portion of the total recovery should be allocated to AHCA’s Medicaid lien. Considering the valuation of Petitioner’s claim at $35,000,000.00, Petitioner’s $10,000,000.00 settlement represents only a 10/35ths recovery of Petitioner’s damages. Multiplying that same 10/35 fraction to the $157,983.63 paid by AHCA through the Medicaid program for past medical expenses results in the proportional sum of $45,138.18 from the settlement proceeds available to satisfy AHCA’s Medicaid lien.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent Agency must be reimbursed by the Petition for purported overpayments regarding Medicaid claims, as delineated in the Respondent's Final Agency Audit Report of December 12, 2003, related to the audit period of July 1, 2000 through July 31, 2002.
Findings Of Fact The Agency is responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid program. The Agency is thus charged with a duty to recover overpayments to medical service providers enrolled in that program. The term "overpayment" means any amount not authorized to be paid by the Medicaid program, whether paid as a result of inaccurate reporting or improper reporting of costs, improper claims, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse, or by mistake. See § 409.913.(1).(d), Fla. Stat. The Petitioner, Maria Lourdes Burgos, M.D., is a pediatrician duly licensed in the State of Florida, practicing as an authorized Medicaid provider for purposes of the relevant portions of Chapter 409, Florida Statutes, at times pertinent hereto. During the period July 1, 2000 through July 31, 2002, (the audit period) the Petitioner had a valid Medicaid provider agreement with the Respondent Agency. During the period of the audit the Petitioner provided services to Medicaid recipients or patients and submitted claims for those services and was compensated for those services. This case is a result of the Agency's attempt to recover purported overpayments from Dr. Burgos. In choosing to become a Medicaid provider, a physician such as Dr. Burgos must assume the responsibilities enumerated in Section 409.913(7), Florida Statutes (2004), which provided generally that such a provider had an affirmative duty to supervise the provision of such services and be responsible for the preparation and submission of claims. The claims are required to be true and accurate, the services are required to actually have been furnished to the recipient by the provider submitting the claim; the services are required to be medically necessary, of a comparable quality to those furnished to the general public by the provider's peers; and to have been provided in accordance with all applicable provisions of Medicaid rules, regulations, handbooks, and policies. They must be in accordance with federal, state, and local law. Additionally, the provision of medical services are required to be documented by records made contemporaneously with the provision of the services, demonstrating the medical necessity for them and the medical basis and specific need for them must be properly documented in the recipient's medical record. The "audit period" involved in this proceeding is July 1, 2000 through July 31, 2002. The Medicaid program reimbursed Dr. Burgos in excess of $43,238.57 in payments pursuant to the Medicaid program during that audit period. The Final Agency Audit Report is in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit One and the calculations pertaining to the overpayment amount are included in that report as part of Respondent's Exhibit One in evidence. The Agency contends that $43,238.57 is an overpayment and subject to recoupment because of Medicaid policy, as alleged in the Final Agency Audit Report (FAAR). Medical records reveal that some services billed, and for which payment was received, were not documented and that documentation provided supported a lower level of office visits than the one for which the Medicaid program was billed and for which payment was received by the Petitioner; and, because payments can be made only for those services listed in the provider handbook, that the Petitioner billed and received payments for services not covered by Medicaid as overpayments. The Agency furnishes all authorized Medicaid providers a manual entitled The Physician Coverage and Limitations Handbook (Handbook). The Handbook contains the requirements demanded of Medicaid providers and it and the procedure code manual (CPT) manual that was in effect during the audit period is in evidence in this proceeding. The handbook has been incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-4.230. This handbook sets forth Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-4.230 and sets forth pertinent applicable Medicaid policies and claims processing requirements applicable to this proceeding. Upon convening of the audit procedure, the Agency requested certain records from the Petitioner and the Petitioner fully complied with the relevant requirements of Chapter 409, Florida Statutes, submitting copies of all records dealing with the recipients who where the subject of the audit. See Exhibit Eight in evidence. The Petitioner, in effect, does not dispute the statistical methodology employed by the agency, but does dispute the manner in which it was applied to certain procedure codes (CPT codes) and the result of the overpayment calculations. Additionally, for every office visit that the Petitioner had with Medicaid patients, she personally made an individual judgment about the level of service that she provided and accordingly billed for that level of care and treatment provided. She was consistent in this in her billing practices as to both Medicaid and non-Medicaid patients. In some instances, regarding the audited Medicaid patient/recipient records, it was demonstrated by the Petitioner that the patient presented with somewhat more complexity as to medical condition that the CPT code, postulated by the Agency as applicable, represented that thus she billed for the higher code (as for instance a "99215" instead of a "99213) or "99214"). Some of these medical judgment calls made by the Petitioner were shown to be appropriate and justified and some where shown by the Respondent's evidence, chiefly the testimony of Dr. Larry Deeb, the Respondent's expert, to be not really appropriate and that they should have been coded and therefore billed at a lower level. In any event, based upon the testimony of Dr. Larry Deeb, as well as the Petitioner's testimony, the submission of both a "well child" checkup billing and a "sick office visit" billing was appropriate and consistent with good medical practice under the circumstances demonstrated by the Petitioner's testimony and her records. Thus it was inappropriate for the Agency to automatically claim an overpayment due for those billings, based upon only its policy interpretation. Additionally, based upon Ms. Mocks testimony, it is apparently an Agency policy or practice in conducting audits, and in recouping overpayments, that when errors are discovered in the audit or in the billing records which happen to be in favor of the practitioner (the Petitioner) that the Agency does not provide a credit applied to any alleged overpayment. It would seem that fundamental fairness dictates that both credits and overpayments be weighed against each other in calculating the ultimate amount of any overpayment, if one exists. In any event, based upon Dr. Deeb's testimony and the Petitioner's testimony, with regard to the random sample of patients and their medical records submitted, reviewed and involved in this dispute, the evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner was not overpaid as to the following amounts and patients/recipients: Recipient Date of CPT Disallowed/ Number Service Billed and Paid Adjusted Amount 1 12/05/00 99215 $37.59 09/05/01 99215 $60.95 2 03/05/01 99214 $15.11 3 09/19/00 99215 $13.01 4 04/04/01 99215 $60.95 5 09/15/00 99214 $15.11 05/10/01 W9881 $22.70 6 01/14/02 99215 $14.52 8 11/08/01 99214 $15.11 9 05/03/01 99205 $87.24 10 05/03/01 99205 $87.241/ 11 04/04/02 90669 $ 0.002/ 04/04/01 W9881 $37.81 04/04/01 99214 $46.42 12 10/18/01 99214 $15.11 01/18/02 99215 $29.63 01/30/02 99215 $14.52 05/20/02 99214 $15.11 13 08/14/00 99215 $13.01 14 01/31/01 99214 $15.11 08/27/01 99214 $15.11 05/13/02 99214 $24.58 15 10/17/00 99356 $50.94 Recipient Date of CPT Disallowed/ Number Service Billed and Paid Adjusted Amount 10/19/00 99233 $12.53 16 10/13/00 99215 $57.14 17 05/10/01 99215 $60.95 12/11/01 W9881 $37.81 12/11/01 99214 $46.42 20 12/22/00 99205 $17.02 22 11/19/01 99223 $42.04 11/20/00 99239 $11.53 23 03/27/02 W1998 $ 0.003/ 04/03/02 99356 $49.72 04/22/02 99215 $ 0.004/ 04/29/02 99214 $13.86 05/10/02 99215 $ 0.005/ 24 08/12/01 99356 $ 0.006/ 08/15/01 99239 $12.06 25 09/30/01 99223 $22.71 10/01/01 99233 $12.66 26 12/03/01 99356 $49.257/ 12/06/01 99239 $12.06 12/14/01 99205 $18.12 01/16/02 99215 $29.63 01/23/02 99215 $29.638/ 28 10/13/01 99431 $ 0.009/ Recipient Number Date of Service CPT Disallowed/ Billed and Paid Adjusted Amount 10/14/02 99233 $12.66 10/15/01 99239 $12.06 29 02/28/02 99356 $ 5.4210/ 03/01/02 99233 $13.80 03/02/02 99239 $13.66 03/06/02 99205 $18.67 29 03/13/02 99215 $14.52 11. The Petitioner in its Proposed Recommended Order has agreed that other than the above (Proposed Recommended Order paragraph 10 patients and amounts) that the Petitioner agrees with the Agency's review and the overpayment calculations on a per office visit basis. Additionally, however, as referenced above, there were additional health insurance claim forms which were, or should have been, submitted to the Agency, representing claims for payment for dates of service that clearly fall within the relevant audit period, that were never compensated by the Agency's contracted agent. The alternative is that the claim forms for some reason were not actually submitted. Unfortunately, neither the Petitioner's records and testimony nor the Agency records can clearly show whether the claim forms were actually submitted or not. It is apparently not possible to retrieve that information from the Agency's claim filling and payment-related computer programming system, for reasons not understood by either party or the judge. There is thus no clear explanation of record concerning why these claims were not paid earlier, even though they fall within the audited period. It is clear, however, that the additional claims referenced in the Petitioner's Exhibit Seven, admitted as a late exhibit herein, do relate to that audit period and represent medical services provided by the Petitioner within that audit period. Since that audit period and the claims referenced in evidence are the subject of a "proceeding" and are pending a "court or hearing decision . . ." or, alternatively and admittedly somewhat speculatively, could be subject of a "system error on claim that was originally filed within (12) months from date of service," it appears patently apparent that fundamental fairness dictates that these health insurance claim forms related to the same audit period should be considered and a determination made as to whether and how much of those claims should be reimbursed to the Petitioner for the medical services they represent. Thus, especially as to exception (2) to the twelve- month filing requirement listed in the above-reference handbook, Exhibit Seven has been admitted into evidence and the claim forms represented therein should be considered and the amounts payable to the Petitioner should be credited against the resultant overpayment amounts calculated as a result of these Findings of Fact.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, re-calculate the amount of overpayment in a manner consistent with the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, excluding from the amount of overpayment those amounts determined above to have not constituted overpayments. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Respondent calculate the amount of reimbursement not provided pursuant to the recently submitted or re-submitted (but never paid) Exhibit Seven health insurance claim forms, and as for the reasons indicted in the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and credit that additional amount of reimbursement against the overpayment calculation amount in arriving at the new overpayment due from the Petitioner to the Respondent. The Petitioner shall repay the Respondent the re-calculated monetary amount of overpayment within a reasonable period of time and by reasonable installment payments, agreed to by both parties, but shall not be obligated to pay other costs or fees related to this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 4th day of November, 2005.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Petitioner received Medicaid overpayments, and, if so, what is the aggregate amount of the overpayments.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent, the Agency for Health Care Administration, is the single state agency charged with administration of the Medicaid program in Florida under Section 409.907, Florida Statutes. Petitioner, The Doctor's Office, was a Florida corporation approved by the Agency to provide group Medicaid services. At all times relevant to this matter, Petitioner was owned entirely by non-physicians who employed salaried physicians to provide Medicaid services. Petitioner, at all times relevant to this matter, offered physician services to Medicaid beneficiaries pursuant to a contract with the Agency under provider number 371236P-00. Petitioner, pursuant to the specific terms in the contract with the Agency, agreed to abide by the Florida Administrative Code, Florida Statutes, policies, procedures, manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program, and Federal laws and regulations. Petitioner, pursuant to its contract with the Agency, agreed to only seek reimbursement from the Medicaid program for services that were "medically necessary" and "Medicaid compensable." The Audit In mid-1996, the Agency, pursuant to its statutory responsibility, advised Petitioner that it intended to audit Petitioner's paid Medicaid claims for the alleged medical services it provided between July 1, 1994 and June 30, 1996. In September 1996, the Agency conducted an initial audit site visit, and randomly selected 61 patient files for review. The complete patient files, provided by Petitioner, were reviewed by Sharon Dewey, a registered nurse consultant and Agency employee, as well as Dr. Solenberger, a physician consultant and Agency employee. In accordance with its procedure, the Agency determined that Petitioner had submitted a total of 580 claims for reimbursement relating to the 61 patient files and had received full payment from the Medicaid program for each claim. On March 3, 1997, the Agency issued a Preliminary Agency Audit Report (PAAR), and advised Petitioner that it had over-billed Medicaid and received an overpayment from the program. Shortly thereafter, the Agency auditors, Dr. Solenberger and Ms. Dewey, met with Frank Colavecchio, Petitioner's Corporate Representative, and discussed the Medicaid violations alleged in the review. During the meeting, the Agency requested Mr. Colavecchio to instruct Petitioner's staff physicians to review their records and provide a written rebuttal to the Agency's initial determinations. Within days, and prior to any further action, the Agency placed the audit on indefinite hold. The Agency decided to delay the audit until certain proposed legislation relating to peer review and the integrity of the Medicaid reimbursement program was enacted. Two years later, Section 409.9131, Florida Statutes, was enacted during the 1999 legislative session and became law. Shortly thereafter, in 1999, the Agency hired Dr. Larry Deeb, a board-certified, practicing pediatrician, to perform a peer review of Petitioner's practices and procedures. Dr. Deeb has performed similar medical records reviews for the Medicaid program since 1981 and possesses a thorough understanding of CPT coding and the EPSDT requirements. Dr. Deeb received the medical files provided by Petitioner, and reviewed each patient file in the random sample, including the medical services and Medicaid-related claim records. On November 11, 1999, Dr. Deeb completed his peer review of 564 of the 580 claims provided in the random sample and forwarded his findings to the Agency. Dr. Deeb advised the Agency that 16 reimbursement claims involved adult patients and he therefore did not review them. Utilizing Dr. Deebs findings, the Agency employed appropriate and valid auditing and statistical methods, and calculated the total Medicaid overpayment that Petitioner received during the two year audit period. On July 17, 2000, approximately four years after the original audit notification, the Agency issued its Final Agency Audit Report (FAAR). The Agency advised Petitioner that, based upon its review of the random sample of 61 patients for whom Petitioner submitted 580 claims for payment between 1994 and 1996, Petitioner received $875,261.03 in total overpayment from the Medicaid program during the audit period. Petitioner denied the overpayment and requested a formal administrative hearing. Following the initial commencement of the final hearing in this matter in December 2001, Dr. Deeb, again, reviewed the disputed claims and modified his opinion relating to 6 claims. Thereafter, the Agency recalculated the alleged overpayment and demanded Petitioner to pay $870,748.31. The Allegations The Agency alleges that specific claims submitted by Petitioner, which were paid by the Medicaid program, fail to comply with specific Medicaid requirements and therefore must be reimbursed. Since its inception, the Medicaid program has required providers to meet the Medicaid program's policies and procedures as set forth in federal, state, and local law. To qualify for payment, it is the provider's duty to ensure that all claims "[a]re provided in accord with applicable provisions of all Medicaid rules, regulations, handbooks, and policies and in accordance with . . . state . . . law." Section 409.913(5)(e), Florida Statutes (1993). Medicaid manuals are available to all Providers. Petitioner, as a condition of providing Medicaid services pursuant to the Medicaid program, is bound by the requirements and restrictions specified in the manuals, and under the contract, is required to reimburse the Medicaid program for any paid claims found to be in violation of Medicaid policies and procedures. The evidence presented at hearing established that Petitioner frequently violated various Medicaid policies and procedures. First, Petitioner repeatedly failed to comply with Section 10.9 of the Medicaid Physician's Provider Handbook, (MPPH), and Sections 409.905(9), 409.913(5)(e), 409.913(7)(e), and 409.913(7)(f), (1993, 1994 Supp. 1995, and 1996), Florida Statutes, which require all medical services to be rendered by, or supervised by a physician, and attested to by the physician's signature. Medical records reflecting services for paid claims must be physician signature certified and dated, or the services are not defined as physician's services. In addition, Petitioner routinely failed to correctly document the provision of certain physician's assistant (P.A.) Medicaid services that require the personal supervision of a physician or osteopath. See Chapter 1 of the Physician Assistant Coverage and Limitations Handbook, March 1995, and Appendix D (Glossary) in the Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook, HCFA-1500 (HCFA-1500). In addition, Petitioner failed to comply with Medicaid regulations that require an approved physician to be present in the facility when certain P.A. services are delivered and to attest to it by signature within twenty-four hours of service. See Section 11.1 of the MPPH, effective July 1994, and Sections 409.905, and 409.913 (1993, 1994 Supp., 1995, and 1996 Supp.), Florida Statutes. The evidence presented at hearing also demonstrates that Petitioner repeatedly violated specific record keeping requirements located in Section 10.9 of the MPPH, Sections 10.6 and 11.5 of the Medicaid EPSDT Provider Handbook (EPSDT), and Sections 409.913(5)(e), 409.913(7)(e), and 409.913(7)(f), (1993, 1994 Supp., 1995, and 1996), Florida Statutes. In addition, the Agency demonstrated that Petitioner occasionally failed to document support for the necessity of certain services or simply billed for services that were not medically necessary. As indicated, Medicaid policy limits a physician to bill only for services that are medically necessary and defines the circumstances and varying levels of care authorized. In fact, Section 11.1 of the MPPH, effective July 1994, provides in part: The physician services program pays for services performed by a licensed physician or osteopath within the scope of the practice of medicine or osteopathy as defined by state law . . . . The services in this program must be performed for medical necessity for diagnosis and treatment of an illness on an eligible Medicaid recipient. Delivery of all services in this handbook must be done by or under the personal supervision of a physician or osteopath . . . at any place of service . . . . Each service type listed has special policy requirements that apply specifically to it. These must be adhered to for payment. The manual further provides clear guidelines defining authorized services for reimbursement which Petitioner apparently overlooked. For example, the manual defines the four types of medical history exams that Medicaid providers may conduct, the nature of the problems presented, and the appropriate and authorized tests. The manual also identifies the varying degrees of medical decision-making complexity related to Medicaid services and provides instructions relating to the method of selecting the correct evaluation and management code for billing. Petitioner consistently violated coding restrictions. Moreover, the Medicaid policy manual also outlines the specific procedures and billing requirements necessary for seeking payment for medical services including the early periodic screening for diagnosis and treatment (EPSDT) services. Chapter 10 and 11 of the MPPH specifically state that services that do not include all listed components of the EPSDT are not defined as an EPSDT, and upon audit, the Agency re-calculated Petitioner's medical services at the appropriate procedure code. Stipulation Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the parties stipulated that certain paid claims were correctly determined by the Agency to be overpayments. Specifically, the parties agreed that portions of samples 1, 3, 14, 21, 28, 41, 46, 47, 51, 53, and 56 could not be claimed for reimbursement since lab services which are part of an office visit reimbursement and/or lab service fees performed by an independent outside lab are not permitted. In addition, the parties agreed that specific portions of samples 1, 13, 14, 27, 28, 33, 35, 43, 46, 47, 52, 53, and 55 could not be claimed since Modifier 26 billing, the professional component, is only appropriate when the service is rendered in a hospital and Petitioner's services were rendered in an office. Pediatric Sample With regard to the random sample of pediatric files, upon careful review, the evidence presented at hearing sufficiently demonstrates that Petitioner was overpaid the following amounts on the following paid claims for the following reasons: The prolonged physician's services billed to Medicaid were not documented as having been provided or medically necessary. Cluster Number Date of Service Procedure Code Billed and Paid Overpayment 1 1/18/1996 99354 $ 36.64 1 5/14/1996 99354 $ 36.64 13 9/25/1995 99354 $ 36.64 19 9/28/1994 99354 $ 39.50 21 12/18/1995 99354 $ 36.64 28 3/06/1995 99354 $ 36.64 42 6/04/1996 99354 $ 36.64 43 12/19/1994 99354 $ 36.64 47 9/28/1994 99354 $ 39.50 47 10/17/1995 99354 $ 36.64 51 4/05/1995 99354 $ 36.64 53 11/02/1995 99354 $ 36.64 56 5/01/1996 99354 $ 36.64 The level of care billed to and reimbursed by Medicaid at the 99215 office visit procedure code level was improper since the level of care provided was at the 99213 office visit procedure code level. Cluster Number Date of Service Overpayment 1 9/14/1995 $ 34.14 1 1/18/1996 $ 34.14 1 5/14/1996 $ 34.14 33 9/28/1994 $ 20.00 47 10/17/1995 $ 34.14 The level of care billed and paid at the 99215 office visit procedure code level was improper since the level of care that was provided was at the 99214 office visit procedure code level. Cluster Number Date of Service Overpayment 53 5/31/1995 $ 21.69 The level of care billed and paid at the 99205 office visit procedure code level was improper since the level of care that was provided was at the 99204 office visit procedure code level. Cluster Number Date of Service Overpayment 25 7/27/1994 $ 2.00 The level of care that was billed and paid at the 99205 office visit procedure code level was improper since the level of care that was provided was at the 99203 office visit procedure code level. Cluster Number Date of Service Overpayment 35 5/11/1995 $ 37.96 51 12/08/1994 $ 15.00 55 11/21/1995 $ 37.96 58 9/22/1995 $ 37.96 The level of care that was billed and paid at the 99215 office visit procedure code level was improper since the level of care that was provided was at the 99204 office visit procedure code level. Cluster Number Date of Service Overpayment 43 12/11/1994 ($ 3.00) credit The level of care that was billed and paid at the 99205 office visit procedure code level was improper since the medical services provided and documentation supported an EPSDT visit. Cluster Number Date of Service Overpayment 53 2/06/1995 $ 16.53 The required components of the EPSDT were not documented as being performed at the office visit that had been claimed and paid as an EPSDT and therefore, the difference between the EPSDT payment received and the value of the procedure code for the documented level of office visit that occurred (i.e., 99214, 99213, 99212, 99211, or 99203), is deemed an overpayment. Cluster Number Date of Service Level of Visit Overpayment 1 7/28/1995 99213 $ 39.82 3 6/28/1995 99213 $ 39.82 5 3/03/1995 99203 $ 21.43 6 7/07/1994 99213 $ 5.00 10 8/17/1995 99212 $ 43.82 12 1/31/1996 99204 $ 0.00 14 5/31/1995 99213 $ 39.82 18 10/04/1994 99213 $ 5.00 18 1/29/1996 99214 $ 27.37 20 8/25/1994 99213 $ 5.00 21 12/11/1995 99214 $ 27.37 29 8/17/1994 99212 $ 9.00 Cluster Number Date of Service Level of Visit Overpayment 29 9/06/1995 99213 $ 39.82 40 7/25/1994 99203 $ 0.00 41 5/06/1996 99214 $ 27.37 46 9/19/1994 99213 $ 5.00 46 10/19/1995 99213 $ 39.82 47 11/02/1994 99213 $ 5.00 51 9/07/1995 99213 $ 39.82 53 7/10/1995 99213 $ 39.82 53 1/19/1995 99213 $ 39.82 59 5/02/1996 99203 $ 43.39 Adult Samples At hearing, Petitioner disputed all of the Agency's findings relating to patients over the age of 21 and objected to Dr. Deeb, a pediatrician, performing any review of their files. While Dr. Deeb is not the appropriate peer to review adult patient files, the following adult claims did not require substantive peer review and resulted in overpayment due to the stated reason: There were not any medical records in existence to indicate that any medical services were performed. Cluster Number Date of Service Procedure Code Billed and Paid Overpayment 2 2/20/1995 99215 $ 53.00 2 7/11/1995 99215 $ 59.14 2 8/09/1995 99215 $ 57.14 2 9/07/1995 99213 $ 23.00 2 10/11/1995 99213 $ 23.00 2 1/02/1996 99213 $ 23.00 2 3/22/1996 73560/Rad.Ex. $ 16.36 2 4/01/1996 99215 $ 57.14 2 4/05/1996 99213 $ 23.00 2 4/23/1996 99213 $ 23.00 15 2/16/1996 99213 $ 23.00 15 2/19/1996 99215 $ 57.14 16 5/14/1996 Blood Count $ 8.00 Cluster Number Date of Service Procedure Code Billed and Paid Overpayment 16 5/14/1996 UA $ 3.00 16 5/14/1996 99215 $ 57.14 23 7/28/1994 99213 $ 23.00 23 5/09/1995 72069/26 Rad.Ex. $ 6.98 23 5/09/1995 72069/Rad.Ex. $ 17.45 23 10/20/1995 99213 $ 23.00 34 4/24/1996 99214 $ 35.45 57 11/17/1995 99215 $ 59.14 60 4/10/1996 99215 $ 57.14 61 5/22/1995 99213 $ 23.00 The medical records failed to contain the required physician's signature and date authenticating the fact that the services billed were performed by either P.A. Olsen or P.A. Avidon under physician supervision. The services provided by the non-physician employee were reviewed and down-coded by the Agency to the appropriate level physician's office visit code. Cluster Number Date of Service Proc. Code Pd./ P. Code Allowed Overpayment 2 6/30/1995 99215/99212 $ 36.14 2 7/20/1995 99215/99213 $ 34.14 2 7/28/1995 99215/99213 $ 34.14 2 9/05/1995 99215/99212 $ 36.14 8 4/17/1995 99205/99203 $ 35.96 17 3/27/1995 99205/99203 $ 35.96 23 5/09/1995 99215/99213 $ 32.14 23 6/09/1995 99215/99213 $ 32.14 34 4/23/1996 99205/99203 $ 35.96 The medical records failed to contain the required physician signature authenticating the fact that the services were provided by a physician. The services provided were reviewed and down-coded by the Agency to the appropriate level physician's office visit code. Procedure Code Cluster Number Date of Service Billed and Paid Overpayment 2 6/14/1995 99215/99211 $ 45.14 16 5/15/1996 99215/99211 $ 45.14 61 5/05/1995 99205/99204 $ 14.53 The provider improperly sought payment for lab services that were part of the office visit reimbursement and/or lab services performed by an independent outside lab. Cluster Number Date of Service Procedure Billed and Paid Overpayment 2 3/08/1996 UA $ 3.00 2 4/03/1996 UA $ 3.00 15 2/08/1996 UA $ 3.00 16 5/15/1996 Blood Count $ 8.50 16 5/15/1996 Blood Count $ 8.00 The provider improperly sought payment for Modifier 26 billings (professional component) which are only appropriate when the service is rendered in a hospital. Cluster Number Date of Service Procedure Billed and Paid Overpayment 2 2/17/1995 Radiologic exam $ 6.98 2 6/14/1995 Radiologic exam $ 7.20 8 4/17/1995 Tympanometry $ 9.00 16 5/13/1996 Radiologic exam $ 5.45 16 5/15/1996 Radiologic exam $ 6.98 In addition to the policy and procedural violations, Petitioner, in egregious violation of the Medicaid program, admittedly submitted Medicaid claims for the services of specialist physicians (such as an allergist, OB/GYN, podiatrist, psychologists, and ophthalmologists) not within its Provider group, collected Medicaid funds based on those claims, and reimbursed the respective specialist. While Petitioner's corporate representative, Mr. Colavecchio, was admittedly responsible for the coding and billing of the Medicaid services submitted for reimbursement, he was minimally aware of the Medicaid policy requirements and possessed limited working knowledge of CPT coding and EPSDT billing. In addition, Petitioner's employees, Dr. Keith Wintermeyer and Dr. Marcia Malcolm, were only moderately familiar with the CPT coding and EPSDT component requirements. They provided little input to Petitioner regarding CPT coding and the sufficiency of certain physician's services relating to EPSDT billing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency re-calculate the overpayment consistent with the Findings of Fact, and include only those identified violations in the cluster samples of the adult patient files, and issue a Final Order requiring Petitioner to reimburse, within 60 days, the Agency for the Medicaid overpayments plus any interest that may accrue after entry of the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Felker-Little, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Charles D. Jamieson, Esquire Ward, Damon & Posner, P.A. 4420 Beacon Circle West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (Petitioner or Agency), is entitled to a Medicaid reimbursement and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the authority and responsibility of administering the Florida Medicaid Program. As part of this authority, the Petitioner is required to recover Medicaid overpayments when appropriate. See § 409.913, Fla. Stat. (2006). At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was a licensed physician and a Medicaid provider subject to the provisions of Chapter 409. As a Medicaid provider, the Respondent was authorized to provide services to eligible patients but was obligated to comply with the Medicaid Provider Agreement in doing so. The Medicaid Program contemplates that authorized providers will provide services to eligible patients, bill the program and be paid according to the Medicaid standards. All Medicaid providers must practice within the guidelines of the Physicians Coverage and Limitations Handbook and applicable law. Providers may be audited so that it can be verified the process was appropriately followed. In this case, the Respondent was audited. According to the audit findings, the Respondent received payment for services that he did not perform. Dr. Eiber (a physician not part of the Respondent’s practice group) reviewed and signed off on x-ray studies and reports for which the Respondent billed and was paid by Medicaid. Dr. Eiber is a Medicaid provider but he is not affiliated with the Respondent or the Respondent’s group. In order for the Respondent to bill and receive payment for Dr. Eiber’s work, the latter physician would have to be listed and identified within the group in which the Respondent practiced. The Respondent was responsible for all billings for which he received payments. In connection with billing, the Respondent was required to maintain and retain all Medicaid- related invoices or claims for the audit period. In this regard, the Physician Coverage and Limitations Handbook specifies that when a radiological study is performed in an office setting, either the physician billing the maximum fee must have performed or indirectly supervised the performance and interpreted the study; or if a group practice, a member of the group must perform all components of the services. That procedure was not followed. When the Agency disallows a paid Medicaid claim, it must seek to recover the overpayment from the Medicaid provider who received payment on the claim. This is the basis of the “pay and chase” methodology used in the Medicaid program. The claims are paid, subject to audit, and recovery is sought when the claim is disallowed. Based on the audit findings in this cause, the Agency seeks $32,935.96 as an overpayment of Medicaid claims paid to the Respondent. The Petitioner also seeks an administrative fine in the amount of $1000.00. The Respondent was given the results of the audit and afforded an opportunity to respond and provide additional information to the Agency to show that the amounts billed were correct. The Respondent has presented no supplemental information to corroborate the correctness of the claims at issue.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order sustaining the Final Audit Report and finding an overpayment against the Respondent in the amount of $32,9935.96. The Final Order should also impose an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. S DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig A. Brand, Esquire Law Offices of Craig A. Brand, P.A. Grove Forest Plaza 2937 Southwest 27th Avenue, Suite 101 Miami, Florida 33133 Willis Melvin, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Craig H. Smith, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Dr. Andrew C. Agwunobi, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue to be decided is the amount payable to Respondent in satisfaction of the Agency’s Medicaid lien from a settlement, judgment, or award received by Petitioner from a third-party under section 409.910(17), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On June 7, 2005, 14-year-old Michael Mobley attended a beach party. The party occurred on, near, or about the beach premises of a hotel. Michael became intoxicated through consumption of alcohol, and drowned in the Gulf of Mexico. He was revived but suffered brain damage, leaving him unable to communicate, ambulate, eat, toilet, or care for himself in any manner. Michael is now dependent on his father for all aspects of his daily life. As a result of this incident, Michael suffered both economic and noneconomic damages. These damages included, at least, physical and mental pain and suffering, past and future medical expenses, disability, impairment in earning capacity, and loss of quality and enjoyment of life. Michael’s parents also suffered damages. Michael’s father’s employer maintained a self-funded Employee Benefit Plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA Plan). The Florida Statutes provide that Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), is the Florida state agency authorized to administer Florida’s Medicaid program. § 409.902, Fla. Stat.1/ Michael’s past medical care related to his injury was provided through health benefits from the ERISA Plan administered through CIGNA HealthCare and Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, and the Florida Medicaid program. The health benefits extended to Michael through his father’s employer totaled $515,860.29. The Florida Medicaid program provided $111,943.89 in benefits. The combined amount of medical benefits Michael received as a result of his injury is $627,804.18. The ERISA Plan provided the employer (through its administrators CIGNA and Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield), with subrogation and reimbursement rights which provided entitlement to reimbursement from any settlement of 100 percent of what the plan had paid. ACS Recovery Services represented CIGNA and Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield, the administrators of the Employee Benefit Plan, and on behalf of these clients ACS Recovery Services asserted a $515,860.29 claim against any settlement Michael received. The Florida Statutes provide that Medicaid shall also be reimbursed for medical assistance that it has provided if resources of a liable third party become available. § 409.910(1), Fla. Stat. In 2006, Michael’s parents, David Mobley and Brenda Allerheiligen, brought a lawsuit in Okaloosa County Circuit Court to recover all of Michael’s damages. By letter dated May 24, 2011, Petitioner’s attorney sent AHCA a Letter of Representation requesting the amount of any Medicaid lien and the itemization of charges. The letter also invited AHCA to participate in litigation of the claim or in settlement negotiations. AHCA through ACS Recovery Services by letter of June 9, 2011, asserted a Medicaid lien against any settlement in the amount of $111,943.89. Testimony at hearing established that a conservative “pure value” of Michael’s economic damage claims in the case, before consideration of such factors as comparative fault, application of the alcohol statute, a defendant’s bankruptcy, and the novel theories of legal liability, was $15 million. A Joint Petition for Approval of Settlement was filed in the Circuit Court in and for Okaloosa County, Florida, on or about June 14, 2012. It stated that although the damages Michael received far exceeded the sum of $500,000, the parties had agreed to fully resolve the action for that amount in light of the parties’ respective assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of their cases. The Petition specifically alluded to pending bankruptcy proceedings, summary judgment dismissal of claims premised upon a duty to provide lifeguarding services, Plaintiff’s remaining theories of liability, available defenses, specifically including the statutory “alcohol defense” as interpreted by the Florida courts, and anticipated costs of trial and appeal. The Petition also stated: “Plaintiff’s claim for past medical expenses related to the incident total $627,804.18. This claim consists of $515,860.29 paid by a self-funded ERISA plan and $111,943.89 paid by Medicaid.” As an attached exhibit, the Petition incorporated a Distribution Sheet/Closing Statement which allocated the $500,000 total recovery among the categories of attorneys’ fees, costs, outside attorneys’ fees, lien/subrogation/medical expenses, and net proceeds to client. The Distribution Sheet allocated $140,717.54 to “lien/subrogation/medical expenses,” subdivided into $120,000.00 to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida/CIGNA and $20,717.54 to Medicaid Lien. The proposed settlement did not further describe the $331,365.65 amount identified as “net proceeds to client,” or allocate that amount among distinct claims or categories of damages, such as physical or mental pain and suffering, future medical costs discounted to present value, disability, impairment in earning capacity, or loss of quality and enjoyment of life. Under the Joint Petition for Approval of Settlement, most of the total recovery thus remains uncategorized as to the type of damages it represents. The Joint Petition for Approval of Settlement was submitted on behalf of the Defendants and Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, including Michael Mobley, Petitioner here. Respondent did not participate in settlement negotiations or join in the Release, and no one represented its interests in the negotiations. The Agency has not otherwise executed a release of the lien. A Release was signed by the Plaintiffs contingent upon court approval of the Petition for Approval of Settlement. The court approved the settlement, with the exception of the Medicaid lien, pending an administrative determination of the amount of the lien to be paid. This $500,000 settlement is the only settlement received and is the subject of AHCA’s claim lien. In regard to the $500,000 settlement: Michael’s parents, Brenda Allerheiligen and David Mobley waived any claim to the settlement funds in compensation for their individual claims associated with their son’s injuries; The law firm of Levin, Papantonio, Mitchell, Rafferty & Proctor, P.A., agreed to waive its fees associated with its representation of Michael and his parents; The law firm of Levin, Papantonio, Mitchell, Rafferty & Proctor, P.A., agreed to reduce its reimbursement of the $60,541.22 in costs it advanced in the litigation of the case by 75% and accept $15,135.31 in full payment of its advanced costs; and ACS Recovery Services on behalf of CIGNA and Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield agreed to reduce its $515,860.29 ERISA reimbursement claim asserted against the settlement and accept $120,000 in satisfaction of its $515,860.29 claim. AHCA is seeking reimbursement of $111,943.89 from the $500,000 settlement in satisfaction of its $111,943.89 Medicaid lien. AHCA correctly computed the lien amount pursuant to statutory formula. Deducting 25 percent for attorney’s fees and $60,541.22 taxable costs from the $500,000.00 recovery leaves a sum of $314,458.78, half of which is $157,229.39. In this case, application of the formula therefore results in a statutory lien amount of $111.943.89, the amount actually paid. § 409.910(17), Fla. Stat. The settlement agreement allocated $120,000.00 to be paid to the ERISA plan in partial reimbursement of the $515,860.29 it had paid for medical expenses. This amount must be added to the amount of $20,717.54 allocated for other medical expenses paid by Medicaid, to reflect a total amount of $140,717.54 allocated for past medical expenses in the settlement. The $500,000 total recovery represents approximately 3.3 percent of the $15 million total economic damages. The $20,717.54 allocated to “Medicaid Lien” in the distribution sheet of the settlement represents approximately 3.3 percent of the $627,804.18 of total past medical expenses. The sum of $3,694.15 represents approximately 3.3 percent of the $111,943.89 in medical costs paid by Medicaid. The Petitioner has deposited the full Medicaid lien amount in an interest-bearing account for the benefit of AHCA pending an administrative determination of AHCA’S rights. The parties have stipulated that this constitutes “final agency action” for purposes of chapter 120, pursuant to section 409.910(17). Petitioner filed his Petition on December 13, 2013, within 21 days after the Medicaid lien amount was deposited in an interest-bearing account for the benefit of AHCA. While the evidence presented as to the settlement agreement was not sufficient to show the full amount allocated to medical expenses, the evidence does show that the total recovery includes at least $140,717.54 allocated as reimbursement for past medical expenses, which was to be divided unevenly between the ERISA plan and Medicaid. Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory lien amount of $111,943.89 exceeds the amount actually recovered in the settlement for medical expenses.
