The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was overpaid by the Medicaid program as set forth in Petitioner's Final Agency Audit Report dated June 12, 2006 for the period January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2004.
Findings Of Fact AHCA audited certain of Dr. Negrette's Medicaid claims pertaining to services rendered between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2004, hereinafter the audit period. Dr. Negrette was an authorized Medicaid provider during the audit period. During the audit period, Dr. Negrette had been issued Medicaid provider number 061422000. No dispute exists that, during the audit period, Dr. Negrette had a valid Medicaid Provider Agreement with AHCA. For services provided during the audit period, Dr. Negrette received in excess $79,523.70 in payments for services to Medicaid recipients. By a preliminary audit report dated August 25, 2005, AHCA notified Dr. Negrette that a preliminary determination was made that he was overpaid by the Medicaid program in the amount of $137,051.25. Subsequently, by a FAR dated June 12, 2006, AHCA notified Dr. Negrette that, after a review of all documentation submitted, it determined that he had been overpaid by the Medicaid program in the amount of $79,523.70, thus, reducing the amount of the overpayment. The FAR further provided how the overpayment was calculated using a sample of the claims submitted during the audit period, including the statistical formula for cluster sampling; and indicated that the statistical formula was generally accepted and that the statistical formula showed an overpayment in the amount of $79,523.70, with a 95 percent probability of correctness. Dr. Negrette agrees that the mathematical computation of the audit is correct.
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 Jesus Negrette, M.D., received overpayments from the Medicaid program in the amount of $79,523.70, during the audit period January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2004, and requiring Jesus Negrette, M.D., to repay the amount of overpayment. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2007, 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 5th day of February, 2007.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), is entitled to recoup from Respondent, JRM Pharmacy, Inc., d/b/a Super Drugs Pharmacy (“JRM”), $156,657.05 as Medicaid overpayments; and whether investigative, legal, expert witness costs, and fines should be imposed against JRM.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the designated state agency responsible for administering the Medicaid Program in Florida. At all times material to this case, JRM has been a licensed pharmacy and authorized Medicaid provider pursuant to a Medicaid Provider Agreement with AHCA. The Medicaid Provider Agreement is a voluntary contract between AHCA and JRM. JRM’s Medicaid provider number is 102451500. As an enrolled Medicaid provider, JRM is subject to the duly-enacted federal and state statutes, regulations, rules, policy guidelines, Medicaid provider publications, and the Medicaid Provider Agreement between it and AHCA. At all times during the audit period, JRM was required to follow the Florida Medicaid Prescribed Drugs, Services, Coverage, Limitations, and Reimbursement Handbook (“Prescribed Drugs Services Handbook”). This case involves a Medicaid audit by AHCA of JRM as to dates of service from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010 (“audit period”). AHCA’s Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity (“MPI”), pursuant to its statutory authority, conducted an audit of JRM of paid Medicaid claims for medical goods and services to Medicaid recipients which occurred during the period from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010. The audit included a comparison of the amount of prescription medications billed to Medicaid by JRM during the audit period with the units of the corresponding medications JRM purchased from licensed wholesalers. The audit concluded that JRM was overpaid a total of $156,657.05 for various prescription medications it billed to AHCA and received payment from AHCA. The claims which make up the overpayment alleged by AHCA of $156,657.05 were filed and paid by AHCA prior to the institution of this matter. JRM does not dispute that it was overpaid $43,890.02 for various prescription medications, and JRM concedes that AHCA is entitled to recover this amount as an overpayment. However, JRM disputes the remaining balance of AHCA’s alleged overpayment of $112,767.03, which AHCA attributes to an overpayment to JRM for the brand named prescription drug Prevacid 30 mg Capsule DR (“Prevacid”). The audit involved a review of JRM’s purchases of Prevacid from McKesson, and Lansoprazole from Bellco, the authorized wholesalers, during the audit period. The audit established that JRM billed to AHCA and received payment from AHCA for more Prevacid than JRM had available during the audit period to dispense to Medicaid recipients. Specifically, the persuasive evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates JRM was overpaid $112,767.03 for Prevacid. When a Medicaid pharmacy provider submits a claim to Medicaid for payment, Medicaid identifies the prescription drug on the claim by the National Drug Code (“NDC”). The generic form of Prevacid is Lansoprazole. Prevacid and Lansoprazole have different NDC numbers. JRM was required to submit the entire 11-digit NDC number for the actual product dispensed on the claim. During the audit period, JRM billed to Medicaid and was paid by Medicaid for “NDC: 00300304613 PREVACID 30 MG CAPSULE DR, NDC: 00300304619 PREVACID 30 MG CAPSULE DR, AND NDC: 64664004613 PREVACID DR 30 MG CAPSULE.” The persuasive evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that JRM billed Medicaid and was paid by Medicaid for 31,650 Prevacid capsules. However, JRM only purchased 10,907 units of Prevacid, leaving a shortage of 20,744 capsules of Prevacid and an overpayment of $112,767.03. Thus, JRM received payment from Medicaid for $112,767.03 for Prevacid that JRM did not purchase and did not dispense to Medicaid recipients. There is a significant cost difference between the brand name Prevacid and generic Lansoprazole, with the brand name Prevacid being billed at a much higher rate than the generic Lansoprazole. JRM purchased a large amount of Lansoprazole from Bellco during the audit period, but billed and received payment from Medicaid for Prevacid. Only prescription drugs that are on the Florida Medicaid Preferred Drug List are allowed to be paid for by Medicaid. During the audit period, generic Lansoprazole was not on AHCA’s preferred drug list. However, Prevacid was on AHCA’s preferred drug list. JRM often dispensed Lansoprazole and billed and received payment from Medicaid for dispensing Prevacid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order of recoupment of a Medicaid overpayment from JRM in the amount of $156,657.05; impose a fine of $5,000.00; and remand this matter to the undersigned for a determination of the amount of investigative, legal, and expert witness costs, should a final order be entered by AHCA indicating that AHCA ultimately prevailed, and if there is any dispute as to the amount of such costs following the issuance of the final order by AHCA. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 13th day of January, 2015.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner must reimburse Respondent an amount up to $1,048,242.62, which sum Petitioner received from the Florida Medicaid Program in payment of claims arising from Petitioner's treating of pediatric patients between October 28, 2000 and October 25, 2002. Respondent alleges that the amount in controversy represents an overpayment arising from Petitioner's submission of claims that were not covered by Medicaid, in whole or in part.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA" or the "Agency") is the state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program ("Medicaid"). Petitioner The Children's Office, Inc. ("TCO") was, at all relevant times, a Medicaid provider authorized to receive reimbursement for covered services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. From time to time, therefore, TCO had entered into various written contracts with the Agency, which will be referred to collectively as the "Provider Agreement." Exercising its statutory authority to oversee the integrity of Medicaid, the Agency conducted a review or audit of TCO's medical records to verify that claims paid by Medicaid during the period from October 28, 2000 to October 25, 2002 (the "Audit Period") had not exceeded authorized amounts. During the Audit Period, TCO had submitted 30,193 claims for services rendered to 3,148 patients (or recipients), on which Medicaid had paid a total of $1,593,881.86. Rather than examine the records of all 3,148 recipients served, the Agency selected a sample of 30 patients, whose records were reviewed first by a nurse consultant, and then by a physician "peer reviewer." TCO had submitted 260 claims during the Audit Period in connection with the 30 patients in the sample population. Medicaid had paid a total of $13,582.78 on these claims. The Agency's reviewers determined that, for various reasons, TCO had received a total of $9,740.10 in reimbursement of claims in the sample for services not covered by Medicaid, in whole or in part. Having discovered this "empirical overpayment" of $9,740.10, the Agency employed a statistical formula to ascertain the "probable total overpayment" that TCO had received from Medicaid in connection with the 30,193 claims presented during the Audit Period.1 (TCO does not dispute the methodology that AHCA used in determining the probable total overpayment based on the empirical overpayment associated with the sample population. The parties agreed at hearing that if the undersigned were to find that the empirical overpayment should be adjusted, then the Agency——not the undersigned——would recalculate the probable total overpayment using the same statistical formula.) The statistical analysis revealed a probable total overpayment of $1,048,242.62. This is the amount that AHCA seeks to recoup from TCO. TCO's resistance to the Agency's proposed action proceeds along two main fronts. One involves systemic or global challenges to the audit as a whole, the aim being to land a knockout blow that would preclude that Agency from recouping any amount. The other entails fact-specific disputes about the reimbursement of individual claims in the sample, the goal being to reduce the empirical overpayment——and thereby reduce the probable total overpayment.2 The Systemic Challenges TCO's systemic challenges to the audit are largely, if not exclusively, legal in nature. Indeed, the relevant facts are not in dispute. The factual bases (including the pertinent statutory and regulatory language) for TCO's arguments are set forth below. 1. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-1.010(22) provides as follows: (22) "Audit" means: an examination of "records for audit" supporting amounts reported in the annual cost report or in order to determine the correctness and propriety of the report; or an analysis of "records for audit" supporting a provider's claim activity for a recipient's services during a year or less of claims activity in order to determine whether Medicaid payments are or were due and the amounts thereof, with claim activity for each separate year constituting a separate audit. The term "audit" also comprehends discussions and interviews related to said examination or analysis. Also see "records for audit."[3] (Emphasis added.) TCO asserts that the foregoing definition of the term "audit" limits AHCA to reviewing periods of no greater than one year at a time, per provider, when investigating possible fraud, abuse, or overpayment as part of its Medicaid oversight responsibility. Because the Audit Period is approximately two years, TCO argues that the audit should be deemed void.4 2. Section 409.9131(5)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that the Agency, in making a determination of overpayment to a physician, must, among other things, "make every effort to consider the physician's patient case mix, including, but not limited to, patient age and whether individual patients are clients of the Children's Medical Services Network." Many of TCO's patients were clients of the Children's Medical Services Network ("CMS"), a fact that, TCO contends, the Agency's reviewers failed adequately to take into account. Though the evidence on this issue is limited, the undersigned agrees with TCO——and finds——that, in general, AHCA's reviewers placed little weight on whether a particular patient participated in CMS. The Agency did, however, consider TCO's overall "case mix" and factors relevant thereto. The undersigned determines, as a matter of fact, that the Agency put forth a reasonable effort under the circumstances to "consider [TCO's] patient case mix" in accordance with the statute. The undersigned further determines that, in any event, "case mix" considerations are not dispositive of the disputed reimbursement issues at hand. 3. Section 409.913(5), Florida Statutes, provides that all Medicaid providers are subject to having goods and services that are paid for by the Medicaid program reviewed by an appropriate peer-review organization designated by the agency. The written findings of the applicable peer- review organization are admissible in any court or administrative proceeding as evidence of medical necessity or the lack thereof. (Emphasis added.) Section 409.9131(5)(b), Florida Statutes, adds that "when the agency's preliminary analysis indicates that an evaluation of the medical necessity, appropriateness, and quality of care needs to be undertaken to determine a potential overpayment" to a physician, the Agency must refer the claims at issue for "peer review." The term "peer review" is defined, for purposes of Section 409.9131, as follows: "Peer review" means an evaluation of the professional practices of a Medicaid physician provider by a peer or peers in order to assess the medical necessity, appropriateness, and quality of care provided, as such care is compared to that customarily furnished by the physician's peers and to recognized health care standards, and, in cases involving determination of medical necessity, to determine whether the documentation in the physician's records is adequate. § 409.9131(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). TCO argues that Section 409.913(5) "clearly requires" the use of a peer-review organization (rather than an individual peer) when auditing "non-physician claims," and it contends that this "requirement" should be held applicable, as well, to the review of physician service claims pursuant to Section 409.9131(5). In this case, the peer review of physician service claims was performed, not by an organization, but by Dr. Larry Deeb, a Florida-licensed pediatrician. Thus, TCO urges that the audit be declared invalid in its entirety. 4. It is undisputed that approximately four years elapsed from the beginning of the Audit Period to the issuance, on November 30, 2004, of the Final Agency Audit Report, which latter gave TCO a clear point of entry to challenge the Agency's overpayment determination. TCO contends that this four-year "delay" was prejudicial to TCO's ability to defend against AHCA's recoupment effort. Thus, TCO argues that this proceeding should be deemed time-barred. 5. TCO asserts, and AHCA did not genuinely dispute, that the medical records provided to the Agency during the audit reveal a number of Medicaid compensable services for which TCO never submitted claims. TCO argues that if an investigation into possible Medicaid overpayments yields information demonstrating the existence of valid, yet unmade claims, then the Agency is under a legal duty either to pay those claims or set them off against any overpayment that might be found. The Fact-Specific Disputes In addition to challenging the validity of the audit as a whole, TCO disputes, in the alternative, the Agency's determinations regarding 13 specific claims; it also urges that several miscellaneous adjustments be made as well.5 These will be examined below. First, however, it is necessary to make some preliminary findings, to place the disputed claims in context. The disputed claims involve what are known as "evaluation and management services" ("E/M services") provided in the doctor's office or other outpatient setting to new or established patients. E/M services are billed to Medicaid using codes that reflect the intensity level of service provided. The codes are called "CPT codes"——"CPT" being short for Current Procedural Terminology. Medicaid reimburses providers for E/M services pursuant to fee schedules that specify the amount payable for each level of service according to the CPT codes. It is the provider's responsibility, in presenting a claim to Medicaid for payment, to determine the appropriate CPT code for the service provided. Medicaid generally pays claims upon receipt, without second-guessing the provider's judgment regarding the level of care. When the Agency conducts an investigation to determine possible overpayment to a provider, however, one thing it might review is whether the provider's claims were properly "coded"—— that is, whether the CPT codes on the bills accurately reflected the level of service provided to the patients, as documented in the medical records. If the Agency determines that the level of service provided was lower than that claimed, then it will "downcode" the claim to the proper level and seek to recoup from the provider, as an overpayment, the difference between what Medicaid paid on the claim as originally coded and what it would have paid on the claim as downcoded. In this case, each of the 13 disputed claim determinations involves a downcode with which TCO disagrees. The following CPT codes are relevant to the claims in dispute: NEW PATIENT 99201 Office and other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient, which requires these three key components: ? a problem focused history;? a problem focused examination;and? straightforward medical decision making. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problems are self limited or minor. Physicians typically spend 10 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. 99202 Office and other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient, which requires these three key components: ? an expanded problem focused history;? an expanded problem focused examination; and? straightforward medical decision making. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problems are low to moderate severity. Physicians typically spend 20 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. 99203 Office and other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient, which requires these three key components:? a detailed history;? a detailed examination; and? medical decision making of low complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problems are of moderate severity. Physicians typically spend 30 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. 99204 Office and other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient, which requires these three key components: ? a comprehensive history;? a comprehensive examination; and? medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problems are low to moderate severity. Physicians typically spend 45 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. 99205 Office and other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient, which requires these three key components: ? a comprehensive history;? a comprehensive examination; and? medical decision making of high complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problems are moderate to high severity. Physicians typically spend 60 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. ESTABLISHED PATIENT 99211 Office and other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, that may not require the presence of a physician. Usually the presenting problem(s) are minimal. Typically, 5 minutes are spent performing or supervising these services. 99212 Office and other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: ? a problem focused history;? a problem focused examination; and? straightforward medical decision making. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problems are self limited or minor. Physicians typically spend 10 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. 99213 Office and other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components:? an expanded problem focusedhistory;? an expanded problem focused examination; and? straightforward medical decision making. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problems are low to moderate severity. Physicians typically spend 15 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. 99214 Office and other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: ? a detailed history;? a detailed examination; and? medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problems are of moderate severity. Physicians typically spend 25 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. 99215 Office and other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: ? a comprehensive history;? a comprehensive examination; and? medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problems are low to moderate severity. Physicians typically spend 40 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. American Medical Association, Evaluation and Management (E/M) Services Guidelines at 9-10 (2001). Turning now to the 13 disputed claims, the following is a summary discussion of each, sorted by recipient and date of service. Recipient No. 2 Date of Service ("DOS") 03/05/01. Nurse Practitioner Beverly Armstrong saw this patient, then aged 10, on March 5, 2001, because he was experiencing nasal drainage and a cough. Ms. Armstrong diagnosed sinusitis and bronchitis and prescribed appropriate medications for those conditions. The child is profoundly developmentally delayed, which complicated the examination and medical decision-making process. TCO billed this visit to Medicaid under CPT Code 99215——the highest level of E/M services for an established patient——and was reimbursed $60.95. It is undisputed, however, that Medicaid does not permit an advanced registered nurse practitioner ("ARNP") to bill any visit at the 99215 level. (If a physician co-signs the medical record, then the claim can be properly submitted as a 99215 visit, but that did not happen on this claim or any other disputed claim here involving the services of an ARNP.) Thus, there is no dispute that this claim must be downcoded. The Agency contends that the claim properly should be reimbursed as a 99213 visit; TCO contends that 99214 is the correct level of service. It is concluded that this visit met the criteria for reimbursement at the 99214 level. The Medicaid fee for ARNP services in connection with a 99214-level visit was $32.82 in March 2001, which is $28.13 less than Medicaid paid on this claim. The Agency based its probable total overpayment determination on an alleged overcharge of $35.90. Thus, the empirical overpayment should be reduced by $7.77. DOS 05/16/02. This patient was seen by Dr. Barbara Chamberlain on May 16, 2005, because he was having difficulty sleeping and was waking up scared. TCO submitted the claim for this visit to Medicaid under CPT Code 99214 and was reimbursed the established fee for that level of service. During the instant audit, the Agency downcoded the visit to 99213, resulting in an alleged overpayment of $15.71 on the claim. At hearing, however, the Agency's counsel conceded that, in view of Dr. Deeb's deposition testimony, the claim had been properly coded as a 99214 visit. Therefore, the empirical overpayment should be reduced by $15.71. Recipient No. 13 DOS 11/01/00. This patient, aged 4, presented on November 1, 2000, with a cough and fever, and was seen by Nurse Armstrong, who diagnosed bronchitis and prescribed treatment therefor. TCO presented this claim to Medicaid as a 99215 visit, which was improper because ARNP services are not authorized for payment at such level, and was reimbursed $59.43. AHCA contends that the claim should be downcoded to 99213, giving rise to an alleged overpayment of $34.38. The undersigned determines, however, that 99214 is the proper code, based on the overall complexity of the case as reflected in the medical records. The appropriate reimbursement, therefore, is $31.85, resulting in an overpayment on this claim of $27.58. The empirical overpayment should, accordingly, be reduced by $6.80. DOS 04/27/01. The patient was seen by Nurse Armstrong on April 27, 2001, complaining of fever and a recent history of vomiting and diarrhea. He was diagnosed with a middle ear infection and allergic rhinitis. After the visit, on the night of April 27, a call was made on this patient's behalf to the on- call nurse to report an ongoing high fever; the patient was encouraged to go to the emergency room for treatment. TCO improperly billed this claim for nursing services as a 99215 visit and was paid $60.95. The undersigned is persuaded by Dr. Deeb's deposition testimony that the appropriate service level on this claim is 99213, as the Agency contends. When it calculated the probable total overpayment, however, the Agency assumed, incorrectly, that the fee for ARNP services on a 99213 claim in April 2001 was $25.05. In fact, such claims were reimbursed at the rate of $21.03 per visit. Thus, for this claim, the empirical overpayment should be increased by $4.02. DOS 04/30/01. The patient presented again on April 30, 2001, with a high fever and nasal congestion. He was seen by Nurse Armstrong, who ordered blood and urine tests and prescribed additional treatment. TCO billed the visit, improperly, as a 99215 and was paid $60.95. Based on the medical records, which document a high fever that was not responding as expected to treatment, the undersigned determines that 99214 is the proper code for this visit. The applicable fee for such a visit, at the time, was $32.82. Thus, the overpayment on this claim is $28.13, not $35.90 as AHCA alleged. The empirical overpayment should be reduced by $7.77. Recipient No. 17 Nurse Armstrong saw this three-year-old on November 29, 2000. The patient came in with redness and swelling of the eyelid. The ARNP referred the patient to an ophthalmologist. TCO submitted a claim to Medicaid, reporting the visit under CPT Code 99215, which was improper because, to repeat for emphasis, nursing services cannot be billed at this level——a point that TCO conceded at hearing. Medicaid paid TCO $59.43 for the visit. The Agency asserts, and the undersigned finds, that this claim should be reimbursed at the 99213 level. The key fact here is that the patient was referred to a specialist. While this was no doubt an appropriate disposition, deciding to make a routine referral to an eye doctor for evaluation of a possible eye infection or injury should be a relatively easy medical task. The fee for ARNP services on a 99213 claim was $20.80 in November 2000. In calculating the probable total overpayment, the Agency incorrectly assumed that the applicable fee was $25.05. Thus, the empirical overpayment should be increased by $4.25 to account for this claim, properly adjusted. Recipient No. 18 DOS 07/17/02. This patient, aged 5, was seen by Dr. Chamberlain on July 17, 2002, for treatment of a cough and low- grade fever. The doctor diagnosed pharyngitis and prescribed an antibiotic. TCO billed Medicaid for a 99215 visit and was reimbursed $63.37. The Agency contends that this claim should be downcoded to 99213. The undersigned agrees, because the medical record documents a routine visit involving a straightforward diagnosis and plan of treatment. Thus, there should be no change to the empirical overpayment on account of this claim. DOS 08/08/02. Dr. Chamberlain saw this patient on August 8, 2002, because he had a fever. The doctor again diagnosed pharyngitis and offered an antibiotic injection, which the patient's mother refused. Dr. Chamberlain spent additional time counseling the mother, but she continued to decline the recommended treatment, against medical advice. TCO presented a claim to Medicaid for a 99214 visit. The Agency urges that this visit be downcoded to 99213, creating an alleged overpayment of $15.71. The undersigned finds, however, that 99214 was the appropriate code for this claim, primarily because of the need for additional counseling as a result of the mother's refusal of treatment. Thus, the empirical overpayment should be reduced by $15.71 for this claim. Patient No. 19 DOS 05/17/02. Nurse Armstrong saw this medically complex three-year-old as a new patient on May 17, 2002. The medical record does not document the specific medical complaint that drove the visit, but states that the patient wanted a nebulizer machine. The nurse examined the patient in some detail and decided to stay the course charted by other providers, directing that the patient continue taking the same medications. TCO reported the visit to Medicaid as a 99205 claim and received $85.00. This was improper on its face because nursing services cannot be billed at this level. The Agency contends that the claim should be downcoded to 99203, and the undersigned agrees. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical decision-making required for this visit should not have exceeded a low level of complexity, especially since no material changes were made to the preexisting treatment plan. The fee for ARNP services on a 99203 visit was $40.23 in May 2002, not $38.70 as shown in the Agency's work papers. Consequently, the empirical overpayment should be reduced by $1.53 to reflect the adjustment of this claim. DOS 06/05/02. Dr. Chamberlain saw the patient on June 5, 2002, because she was vomiting, sleeping too much, and experiencing a loss of appetite. The doctor ordered emergency blood work, which revealed that one of the medications that the patient was taking had reached a toxic level in her bloodstream. This was a potentially life-threatening situation that required prompt medical attention. TCO billed this visit at the 99215 level. AHCA argues that the claim should be downcoded to 99213, at which level an alleged overpayment of $30.81 would result. The undersigned agrees with TCO, however, that 99215 was the proper code under the circumstances. The empirical overpayment should be reduced by $30.81 for this claim. DOS 07/08/02. The patient was seen by Dr. Chamberlain on July 8, 2002, for a "pre-op" examination ahead of a scheduled surgery to repair a hernia. The visit was billed to Medicaid as a 99215 claim, and TCO received $63.37. In this proceeding, TCO has conceded that 99215 was excessive, but it presses for a downcode only to 99214. The Agency asserts that 99213 is the proper code for this claim. The undersigned is persuaded that this focused pre-op examination should not have required a level of care beyond 99213. In July 2002, the fee for a physician's services on a 99213 visit was $32.56. The overpayment on this claim therefore is $30.81. Because the Agency mistakenly recorded the overpayment as $37.32 in its work papers and used that figure in calculating the probable total overpayment, the empirical overpayment should be reduced by $6.51. DOS 07/25/02. On this day, the medical records show that the patient was seen by Nurse Armstrong for "labs only" and to have a form completed for school. TCO submitted a claim to Medicaid for a 99215 visit (which was facially improper) and was reimbursed $63.37. AHCA now seeks to deny the claim in its entirety based on the absence of a medical record. Yet, as TCO points out, there is a record of this visit. It reflects that minimal services were performed and no examination of the patient was conducted. Thus, the claim should be downcoded to 99211. For ARNP services at this level, Medicaid paid $10.37 at the relevant time. Thus, the empirical overpayment should be reduced by $10.37 to account for this claim. DOS 09/04/02. Nurse Armstrong saw the patient, who presented with a fever and cough, on September 4, 2002. This visit took place a couple of weeks after the patient's hernia had been surgically repaired. The nurse diagnosed pharyngitis or tonsillitis. TCO presented the claim to Medicaid, improperly, as a level 99215 visit and received $63.37. AHCA contends that the claim should be downcoded to 99213. This would have been the appropriate code, the undersigned believes, but for the fact that the child had recently undergone surgery, which added an element of complexity to the case. The undersigned finds that the proper code for this claim is 99214. At the time, Medicaid paid $34.52 for ARNP services on a 99214 claim. Thus, the overpayment on this claim is $28.85. Because AHCA based its determination of the probable total overpayment on an alleged overpayment of $37.32 on this claim, the empirical overpayment should be reduced by $8.47. Miscellaneous Adjustments TCO has identified a number of alleged errors in the Agency's work papers, which will be discussed below. Recipient No. 15, DOS 12/07/00. This claim for a doctor's services was coded 99664. Medicaid paid TCO $8.00 on the claim. As part of the audit, AHCA reduced the allowable fee to $6.40, because the services at issue were in fact performed by an ARNP. This created an alleged overpayment on the claim of $1.60. TCO does not dispute that an ARNP performed the services; it asserts that the applicable fee is more than $6.40. TCO is correct. The fee for ARNP services on a 99664 claim was, in December 2000, $8.57. Thus, the empirical overpayment should be reduced by $2.17 (0.57 + 1.60). Recipient No. 30, DOS 05/03/02. TCO billed Medicaid for a doctor's services at the 99203 level and was reimbursed $50.30. AHCA determined in the audit that an ARNP actually performed the services in question and reduced the allowable fee to $40.24, resulting in an alleged overpayment of $10.06. The applicable ARNP fee schedule shows an allowable fee of $40.23. Thus, the empirical overpayment should be increased by 0.01 to account for this claim. Recipient No. 18, DOS 08/09/02. TCO correctly notes that, contrary to the Agency's allegation, there is a medical record for this visit, which shows that the ARNP gave the patient a shot of antibiotic medicine. Thus, while the Agency properly determined that TCO's claim for a physician's services at level 99215 resulted in an overpayment, it should have downcoded the claim to 99211, rather than denied the claim in its entirety, and allowed reimbursement at the ARNP fee of $10.37. Accordingly, the empirical overpayment should be reduced by $10.37. Recipient No. 17, DOS 07/10/01. TCO has identified a typographical error in a one of the Agency's work papers, where the date of service for this claim incorrectly was recorded as July 10, 2000, instead of July 10, 2001. This error did not affect the overpayment calculations, however, and thus no adjustment to the empirical overpayment is required. Recipient No. 22, DOS 09/03/02. TCO alleges that the allowed fee of $48.27 "is wrong." According to the applicable fee schedule, however, this is indeed the correct figure. Therefore, no change in the Agency's calculations is warranted. Recipient No. 23, DOS 08/07/02. TCO points out that a work paper of the Agency fails to mention the allowed CPT Code for this claim. The omission had no effect on the Agency's overpayment calculations. Recipient No. 26, DOS 07/20/01. TCO notes a typographical error in a work paper that had no effect on the Agency's overpayment calculations. Recipient No. 26, DOS 03/13/01. TCO notes a typographical error in a work paper that had no effect on the Agency's overpayment calculations. Other Discrepancies In the course of reviewing the Agency's work papers and the medical records in evidence, the undersigned discovered several minor discrepancies that should be corrected in recalculating the probable total overpayment. Recipient No. 2. The total alleged overpayment for this patient, before making any of the adjustments described above, is $1,571.93, not $1,594.42, which latter figure was used by the Agency in determining the probable total overpayment. Therefore, the empirical overpayment should be reduced by $22.49. Recipient No. 5. The total alleged overpayment for this patient, before making any of the adjustments described above, is $27.63, not $26.38, which latter figure was used by the Agency in determining the probable total overpayment. Therefore, the empirical overpayment should be increased by $1.25. Recipient No. 15. The total alleged overpayment for this patient, before making any of the adjustments described above, is $367.35, not $372.44, which latter figure was used by the Agency in determining the probable total overpayment. Therefore, the empirical overpayment should be reduced by $5.09. Recipient No. 30. The total alleged overpayment for this patient, before making any of the adjustments described above, is $42.62, not $44.16, which latter figure was used by the Agency in determining the probable total overpayment. Therefore, the empirical overpayment should be reduced by $1.54. Summary The Agency based its determination of the probable total overpayment on an empirical overpayment of $9,740.10. In accordance with the foregoing findings, it is determined that this figure should be increased by a total of $9.53, and reduced by a total of $153.11, making a net empirical overpayment of $9,596.52. In other words, the undersigned finds that, of the $13,582.78 which TCO received from Medicaid for the 260 total claims submitted during the Audit Period in connection with medical services provided to the sample population of 30 patients, $9,596.52 constituted an overpayment. Thus, it is this figure——$9,596.52——that should be used in calculating the probable total overpayment arising from the 30,193 claims presented during the Audit Period, for which Medicaid paid TCO a grand total of $1,593,881.86.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency recalculate the probable total overpayment using the statistical formula previously employed but substituting $9,596.52 in place of $9,740.10 as the empirical overpayment, and enter a final order requiring TCO to repay the Agency the principal amount determined through such recalculation. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 2006.
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 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 following are the issues presented: Whether Respondent, Leeland ER SVCS Partnership (“Leeland”), is liable to the Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) for Medicaid overpayments in the amount of $12,377.17, during the audit period of March 1, 2009, through August 31, 2011; Whether Leeland should be required to pay an administrative fine of $2,475.43, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-9.070(7)(e); and Whether Leeland is liable to AHCA for the agency’s investigative, legal, and expert witness costs pursuant to section 409.913(23)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: ACHA is designated as “the single state agency authorized to make payments for medical assistance and related services under Title XIX of the Social Security Act,” i.e., the “Medicaid program.” § 409.902(1), Fla. Stat. Among its duties as the Medicaid agency, AHCA is required to conduct audits of medical providers participating in the Medicaid program, and to “recover overpayments and impose sanctions as appropriate.” § 409.913, Fla. Stat. Section 409.913(1)(e) defines "overpayment" to include "any amount that is not authorized to be paid by the Medicaid program whether paid as a result of inaccurate or improper cost reporting, improper claiming, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse, or mistake." The Medicaid provider agreement is a voluntary contract between AHCA and the provider. An enrolled Medicaid provider must comply fully with all state and federal laws pertaining to the Medicaid Program, including the Medicaid provider handbooks incorporated by reference into AHCA’s rules, as well as all federal, state, and local laws pertaining to licensure to receive payment from the Medicaid program. This case involves an AHCA Medicaid audit conducted of Leeland’s paid Medicaid claims as to the dates of service from March 1, 2009, through August 31, 2011, hereinafter referenced as the “audit period.” Leeland was randomly selected for audit and had no prior violations of Medicaid law. Therefore, any sanction imposed on Leeland in this proceeding would constitute a “first offense” under the operative rule discussed in the Conclusions of Law below. During the audit period, Leeland was an enrolled Medicaid provider and had a valid Medicaid provider agreement with AHCA. As an enrolled provider, Leeland was subject to all relevant federal and state statutes, rules, policy guidelines, and Medicaid handbooks incorporated by reference into rule. AHCA issued a PAR, dated June 20, 2013, alleging that Leeland was overpaid $200,349.16 for certain claims that in whole, or in part, were not covered by Medicaid. AHCA later issued a FAR, dated August 16, 2013, alleging that Leeland was overpaid $33,111.52 for certain claims that in whole, or in part, were not covered by Medicaid. The FAR further informed Leeland that AHCA intended to impose a fine of $6,622.30 (20% of the total overpayment) as a sanction for violation of rule 59G-9.070(7)(e) and to impose costs pursuant to section 409.913(23). Leeland received the FAR on August 23, 2013. Leeland timely filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing on September 24, 2013. On October 9, 2013, Leeland tendered payment to AHCA in the amount of $33,111.52, as requested in the FAR, to be held in escrow pending the administrative hearing. The FAR set forth the basis for the overpayment determination as follows: Medicaid policy defines the varying levels of care and expertise required for the evaluation and management procedure codes for office visits. The documentation you provided supports a lower level of office visit than the one for which you billed and received payment. This determination was made by a peer consultant in accordance with Sections 409.913 and 409.9131, F.S. The difference between the amounts you were paid and the correct payment for the appropriate level of service is considered an overpayment. The FAR also stated that the overpayment calculation was based on a statistical formula by which a random sample of the claims submitted by Leeland was selected and extrapolated to the total number of claims in order to arrive at the amount of the total overpayment: A random sample of 63 recipients respecting whom you submitted 134 claims was reviewed. For those claims in the sample, which have dates of service from March 1, 2009, through August 31, 2011, an overpayment of $308.96 or $2.30567164 per claim, was found. Since you were paid for a total (population) of 26,060 claims for that period, the point estimate of the total overpayment is 26,060 x $2.30567164 = $60,085.80. There is a 50 percent probability that the overpayment to you is that amount or more. We used the following statistical formula for cluster sampling to calculate the amount due the Agency:[1/] All of the claims relating to a recipient represent a cluster. The values of overpayment and number of claims for each recipient in the sample are shown on the attachment entitled “Overpayment Calculation Using Cluster Sampling.” From this statistical formula, which is generally accepted for this purpose, we have calculated that the overpayment to you is $33,111.52 with a ninety-five percent (95%) probability that it is that amount or more. After issuance of the FAR, Leeland provided additional information and documentation to MPI, which conducted a peer review of the new material. AHCA subsequently reduced the alleged overpayments in the sample to $171.38. Overpayments were found on claims involving seven of the 63 recipients.2/ AHCA concluded that this overpayment amounted to 2.45 percent of the total payments of $6,987.99 made to Leeland for the claims in the sample. The overpayment amount of $171.38 was extrapolated to the entire population of claims using the formula set forth above. AHCA concluded that the total amount of overpayments to Leeland for all Medicaid recipients in the population was $12,377.17, with a 95 percent confidence level. This reduction in the alleged overpayment led AHCA to make a proportional reduction in the proposed fine, to $2,475.43. Leeland does not challenge the agency’s conclusion that the actual overpayment found in the sample amounted to $171.38. Leeland does challenge the method by which AHCA used that actual overpayment to extrapolate an overall overpayment amount of $12,377.17 for the entire body of Medicaid claims submitted by Leeland during the audit period. AHCA is required by statute to use an “accepted and valid statistical calculation” to determine Medicaid overpayments. ACHA submitted its audit report and work papers into evidence. To support the validity of the cluster sampling method used in this case, AHCA presented the testimony of Dr. Fred Huffer, a professor in the Statistics Department at Florida State University, as well as the AHCA employees who provided the data to which the formula was applied. Robi Olmstead, supervisor of MPI’s Practitioner Care Unit, testified that Leeland was randomly selected for audit. Once the selection was made, Ms. Olmstead assigned the case to an investigator. Her office applied a computerized claim sampling program to select the recipients and claims to be audited. The program pulled all claims for the provider during the audit period. Ms. Olmstead sorted the claims, selecting only those that were fee-for-service, then generated the “seed” and selected the cluster sample. Ms. Olmstead testified that the program tells her how many recipients should be reviewed to make a statistically valid sample. In Leeland’s case, the program stated that 62.6 recipients should be used, so the number was rounded up to 63. Lisa Robinson, the MPI investigator who handled the Leeland audit, testified that the claim sampling program selected the list of 63 recipients to be audited. Ms. Robinson sent a request for medical records to Leeland. Once Leeland submitted the records for the 63 recipients, Ms. Robinson reviewed the records. The claim sampling program generated a worksheet listing each billed claim for each recipient. Ms. Robinson attached the worksheets to the records and prepared them for the nurse reviewer. The nurse reviewer reviewed and organized the records for a peer review by a physician. After the physician reviewed and determined any disallowed amounts, the records were returned to Ms. Robinson, who entered the disallowed amounts into the claim sampling program to determine the amount of the overpayment. Ms. Olmstead testified that she has no statistical expertise and that she relied on Dr. Huffer to review and validate the results obtained by the claim sampling program. Ms. Robinson likewise claimed no statistical expertise or any real knowledge of how the claim sampling program works. Ms. Robinson simply enters data into the program and accepts the results it generates. Dr. Huffer, who has consulted with MPI since 2004, testified that when he received the overpayment calculation results, he first checked the calculations. Next, he constructed hypothetical populations based on MPI’s sample to test the confidence level of 95 percent asserted in the FAR. Dr. Huffer explained that a confidence level is a probability attached to the correctness of some statement or procedure. The 95 percent confidence level in this case means that if MPI runs its audit procedure repeatedly, the number that it states as the overpayment from a sample of the population will be less than the “true” overpayment in the overall recipient population 95 percent of the time. The “true” overpayment value remains unknown, but the simulations performed by Dr. Huffer lead to a “reasonably confident” conclusion that the assessed overpayment is an underestimate of that “true” value. Dr. Huffer stated that the simplest type of sampling scheme is a simple random sample, in which units are selected at random and audited. He noted that sometimes the units are naturally grouped into clusters, and much sampling effort can be saved by sampling the clusters of units rather than the units individually. In this case, AHCA was interested in auditing a population of claims, but the claims were naturally grouped by recipients. Therefore, to conserve resources, AHCA used single- stage cluster sampling, with each selected resident constituting a cluster of claims to be audited. Dr. Huffer noted the practical advantages of this method: [T]here’s a lot less effort in accessing the records of a smaller number of recipients, and also there’s a lot less effort in making decisions about medical necessity for a small number of recipients versus, say, a large number of recipients. So there’s a lot of savings in sampling effort by doing a cluster sampling based upon clusters, which are the recipients. Dr. Huffer testified that a sample size of 63 was valid, independent of the size of the population from which the sample was taken. He stated that “it is a well-known fact in statistics that it is the sample size which primarily governs the accuracy of the result, not the population size.” He noted, for instance, that a sample size of 35 could be validly used for a population of one million. Dr. Huffer explained that he constructed a hypothetical population that is “like a large scaled-up version of the sample.” He “cloned” every recipient and every claim for all recipients about 208 times to make a hypothetical population of approximately 13,000 recipients. From this population, he sampled 63 recipients at random and performed the same calculation that AHCA did on its sample. He performed the calculation procedure on two million samples of 63 recipients drawn from his hypothetical population. Dr. Huffer’s two million simulations yielded an empirical confidence level of 97.7 percent, meaning that “we’re even more confident in this case that the number we announce as the overpayment is less than the true overpayment . . . in the population.” Dr. Huffer explained the extrapolation of the sample to the population. By taking the $171.38 of total overpayments found in the 134 claims for the population of 63 residents in the sample, MPI derived an average overpayment per sample claim of $1.27.3/ There were 26,060 claims in the entire population. Multiplying the total number of claims by the $1.27 average overpayment yielded a “point estimate” of the total overpayment of a little more than $33,000. Dr. Huffer stated that while the overpayments in the population may be “in the neighborhood” of the point estimate, there is never an expectation that the point estimate will be exactly correct. Every random sample of recipients would yield a somewhat different total. Therefore, a standard error of the overpayment was introduced as an estimate of how far wrong the point estimate might be. The standard error in this case was $12,547.82. The true overpayment could be plus or minus some multiple of the standard error. Dr. Huffer testified that to reach the lower bound of the 95 percent confidence level, MPI subtracted about one and one-half times the standard error from the point estimate to arrive at an overpayment value of $12,377.17. Dr. Huffer concluded that there was “strong evidence” that the true overpayments exceeded $12,377.17, because that figure was an “intentional underestimate.” Counsel for Leeland questioned Dr. Huffer about the validity of the statistically derived overpayment, given that the actual overpayment drawn from the sample, $171.38, was so small compared to the total Medicaid payments for those recipients. Dr. Huffer testified that the 95 percent confidence rate is “totally unrelated” to the magnitude of the actual overpayments. To counter Dr. Huffer’s testimony on the irrelevancy of the size of the actual overpayment to the validity of the sampling method, counsel for Leeland presented a federal Medicare statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1395ddd(f)(3), which provides as follows, in relevant part: Limitation on use of extrapolation A medicare contractor may not use extrapolation to determine overpayment amounts to be recovered by recoupment, offset, or otherwise unless the Secretary determines that— there is a sustained or high level of payment error; or documented educational intervention has failed to correct the payment error . . . . Dr. Huffer responded that the federal statute does not imply that extrapolation is not allowed for statistical reasons. He believed that the reason for the Medicare law’s disallowance of extrapolation in smaller cases could be simply to forgive errors below a certain threshold. Counsel for Leeland offered another example, an “Open Letter to Health Care Providers” issued by the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 2001. The letter sets forth new claims review procedures, including a statement that if the net financial error rate in a discovery sample is below five percent, the provider is not required to perform any further audit work and only the actual identified overpayments must be refunded. Dr. Huffer pointed out that the letter, like the statute, does not question the statistical validity of extrapolation. “They do not give any statistical reason for saying that it would be wrong to proceed in this case. As far as I know, they’re just saying if you [have] a small error rate, we’ll forgive it.” Dr. Huffer agreed that there was not a “sustained or high level of payment error” in this case, but observed that this case was not being decided under the federal Medicare statute. Dr. Huffer opined that the sampling method used in this case was reasonable and comported with generally accepted statistical methods. His opinions and explanation were credible, were unrebutted, and are accepted. Leeland's attempt to undermine Dr. Huffer’s opinions through cross-examination was ineffective and lacked the support of contradictory expert testimony regarding generally accepted statistical methods. AHCA seeks to recover its investigative, legal, and expert witness costs pursuant to section 409.913(23)(a). AHCA has established its right to recover these costs. At the outset of the final hearing, the parties agreed that if AHCA prevailed in the case-in-chief, and was found to be entitled to costs, then this tribunal would retain jurisdiction for the limited purpose of allowing AHCA to document its costs in the manner provided by section 409.913(23)(b).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order requiring Leeland ER SVCS Partnership to repay the sum of $12,377.17 for overpayments on claims that did not comply with the requirements of Medicaid laws, rules, and provider handbooks, including interest. Jurisdiction is retained to determine the amount of costs and attorney's fees, if the parties are unable to agree to the amount, and either party may file a request for a hearing within 30 days after entry of the final order to determine the appropriate amounts. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 11th day of April, 2016.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner received Medicaid overpayments and, if so, the total amount of the overpayments. Petitioner agreed at the onset of the hearing not to contest the findings of the Agency that Petitioner received Medicaid monies to which he was not entitled. Therefore, the issue remaining for determination is: Whether Respondent calculated the overpayment amount of $52,850.82 using a valid statistical formula and a valid sample of recipients and claims during the audit period of March 1, 2000, through March 1, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses while testifying, the documentary materials received in evidence, official recognition granted, evidentiary rulings made, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant and material facts are established. The Agency is charged with administration of the Medicaid program in Florida pursuant to Sections 409.907 and 409.913, Florida Statutes (2003). Among its administrative duties, the Agency operates a program to oversee the activities of Florida Medicaid providers to ensure that fraudulent and abusive behavior and neglect occur to the minimum extent possible and to recover overpayments and impose sanctions as appropriate. "Overpayment" is statutorily defined to mean "any amount that is not authorized to be paid by the Medicaid Program, whether paid as a result of inaccurate or improper cost reporting, improper claiming, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse or mistake." § 409.913(1)(d), Fla. Stat. (2000). The FAAR, covering the audit period of March 1, 2000, through March 1, 2002, together with the Agency's work papers, set out a Medicaid overpayment amount of $52,850.82 that the Agency seeks to recoup from Petitioner. Petitioner is a physician enrolled in the Medicaid program under provider number 0580091-00, who operated under his provider number during the audit period of March 1, 2000, through March 1, 2002, under the auspices of a standard Medicaid provider agreement. As a part of the Medicaid provider agreement, the provider agrees to comply with all local, state and federal laws, rules, regulations, licensure laws, Medicaid bulletins, and statements of policy. Petitioner participated in the Medicaid program during the FAAR period of March 1, 2000, through March 1, 2002, and received payment for the services that the Agency now questions and are the subject of the audit. During the above audit period, the applicable statutes, rules, and Medicaid handbooks required Petitioner to retain all medical, fiscal, professional, and business records on all services provided to a Medicaid recipient. Petitioner had to retain these records for at least five years from the date of services. The Florida Medicaid program prepares and furnishes handbooks to all enrolled Medicaid providers, including Petitioner. These handbooks set forth the Medicaid policies with regard to services rendered and billed by providers. Petitioner had a duty to make sure that each claim submitted was true and accurate and was for goods and services that were provided, by an enrolled Medicaid provider, in accordance with the requirements of Medicaid rules, handbooks, and policies, and in accordance with federal and state law. Medicaid providers who do not comply with the Medicaid documentation and record retention policies hereinabove may be subject to administrative sanctions and/or recoupment of Medicaid payments. Medicaid payments for services that lack required documentation and/or appropriate signatures will be recouped. Mr. Hector Tapining (Mr. Tapining) and Phyllis Stiver (Nurse Stiver), registered nurse consultant for Medicaid Program Integrity, conducted an on-site visit to Petitioner's office and requested records. From the files of Petitioner, Mr. Tapining generated a random list of 30 Medicaid recipients (the cluster sample) who had received services by Petitioner during the two- year audit period of March 1, 2000, through March 1, 2002. The Agency thereafter generated worksheets reflecting: (1) the total number of Medicaid recipients during the audit period; (2) total number of claims made by Petitioner, with dates of medical services provided; (3) the total amount of money paid Petitioner during the audit period; and (4) the analyst's worksheets representing his review of each recipient's claim(s) for the audit period. Additional Agency-generated worksheets reflected: (1) the total number of Medicaid recipients during the audit period; (2) the total number of claims of Petitioner, with dates of service; (3) the total amount of money paid to Petitioner during the audit period; and (4) the analyst's worksheets representing his review of each recipient's claim(s) for the audit period. Mr. Tapining provided the worksheets to Nurse Stiver for her review of compliance with Medicaid enrollment and documentation. Mr. Tapining provided the worksheets to E. Rawson Griffin, III, M.D. (Dr. Griffin), the medical records consultant, for his review and evaluation of appropriate billing codes. The formula used by the Agency is a valid statistical formula, the random sample used by the Agency was statistically significant, the cluster sample was random, and the algebraic formula and the statistical formula used by the Agency are valid formulas. Dr. Griffin, after review of 30 patient records, concluded that Petitioner engaged in a general pattern of over coding at the highest level of code (99205) for services rendered that appeared to be rather straight-forward and simple for the medical services rendered at the time of each visit. Over coding is the term employed when supporting documentation for medical billing does not support the billing code chosen and assigned by the provider. In his review, Dr. Griffin saw no middle codes (99213s and/or 99214s) billed by Petitioner. Dr. Griffin opined that it was extraordinary that Petitioner would see and service 30 patients on their first visits, who at that time presented a complaint necessitating a medical necessity level code 99205, the highest level of Medicaid service. Continuing, Dr. Griffin explained that over coding is entering in the patient's billing statement a code higher than the patient's medical complaint and the Patient's recorded medical necessity warranted for the visit or visits (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) on the date those services were provided by Petitioner. In Dr. Griffin's opinion, Medicaid billing codes are to be determined by consideration of the following medical factors: (1) the patient's particular medical complaint and the degree of complexity of that complaint at the time of the initial visit, (2) the type of and the complexity of medical examinations and the tests necessarily required to be administered based upon the type and complexity of the initial complaint, and (3) the resulting interpretations of the tests and the examinations administered for treatment of the complaint. It is only after completion of the above analysis and documentation in the patient's medical records, would a code 22915 billing be appropriate. Dr. Griffin's analysis of the cluster sample of 30 Medicaid records of patients serviced by Petitioner resulted in his down coding Petitioner’s billing as shown below.2 I.D. Number Service Date Code Billed Adjustment B.K. 1 03-29-2000 215 (5) 214 B.K. 1 07-19-2000 214 213 1 08-17-2000 214 213 1 12-11-2000 215 214 1 02-22-2001 215 214 1 05-23-2001 214 213 1 06-24-2001 214 212 J.A.C. 4 No date 215 214 J.R. 5 10-02-2000 215 213 B.F. 6 07-25-2000 215 213 F.H. 8 04-10-2000 215 213 F.H. 8 05-04-2000 214 213 (2 visits) D.C. 9 01-23-2000 215 213 T.M. 10 06-07-2000 215 213 T.M. 10 06-28-2000 214 213 D.W. 13 01-12-2000 215 213 P.L. 14 01-10-2000 214 213 I.H. 15 12-18-2000 215 213 M.V. 17 04-10-2000 215 213 R.R. 21 04-17-2001 214 213 S.K. 25 11-20-2000 212 211 A.H. 26 12-19-2000 215 212 T.P. 27 02-20-2000 215 213 M.R. 28 11-14-2002 215 214 E.C. 29 04-28-2000 214 213 E.C. 07-03-2000 214 213 12-28-2000 214 212 01-02-2000 214 212 01-23-2000 214 212 02-06-2000 214 212 04-03-2000 214 212 (6 visits) R.S. 30 04-16-2001 215 213 Nurse Stiver reviewed the cluster sample of 30 Medicaid records of patients serviced by Petitioner for compliance with Medicaid policy(s) to ensure that services billed are the services for which Medicaid pays and are services that meet all aspects of the Medicaid policy(s) as specified in the Medicaid Handbook. Medicaid policy, regarding provider enrollment, requires (all) providers who services Medicaid patients to be (individually) enrolled in the Medicaid program as providers before providing service and billing Medicaid for those services. The Agency verifies the education, credentials, and criminal background of each enrollee to ensure the safety of Medicaid recipients. The individual provider enrollment is required as a condition precedent for providers to bill Medicaid for services and to be paid by Medicaid for those services. The enrollment requirement includes PAs and ARNPs. Nurse Stiver's review of Petitioner's documents sought to ascertain whether each provider who actually rendered services had executed a voluntary enrollment contract agreement between the Agency and that provider. In these contract agreements, the provider agrees to comply with all laws and rules pertaining to the Medicaid program when furnishing a service or goods to a Medicaid recipient, and the Agency agrees to pay a sum, determined by a fee schedule, payment methodology, or other manner, for the service or goods provided to the Medicaid recipient. The Medicaid Handbook requires separate and/or individual enrollment of each and every entity that provides Medicaid service(s) to Medicaid recipients. The mandatory enrollment includes a provider(s) who makes written entries on and/or signs Medicaid documents. Should the medical service provider and the provider documenting the Medicaid recipient's medical files and the provider billing Medicaid for services rendered be different providers, each provider must be individually enrolled in the Medicaid program. Within a chain of provider entities, the failure of one provider entity to be enrolled entitles the Agency to full recoupment of all Medicaid payments made to the enrolled Provider. Nurse Stiver applied the above analysis to the cluster sample of 30 Medicaid recipients' records recovered from Petitioner's files and to the Agency's worksheets. Nurse Stiver's review and her investigation revealed specific instances in which the paid billing claims evidenced that Petitioner's non-enrolled PAs and/or Petitioner's non-enrolled ARNP either provided the medical services or documented the medical services provided to the Medicaid recipients as shown below: Patient Service Date(s) Services and/or documentation 1. B.K. Serviced 9 times Signature-not enrolled 2. E.J. 08-14-01 Records written and signed by PA not enrolled and (not countersigned by Petitioner) 3. E.T. Serviced 4 times Services provided not entitled to Medicaid payment (unauthorized) J.A. (stipulation) Stipulation3 B.F. 11 visits-serviced Provider not enrolled M.R. 7 visits-serviced Provider not enrolled F.H. 11 visits-serviced Provider not enrolled through 12. Stipulations 13. D.W. 2 visits-serviced Provider not enrolled 14. through 17. Stipulations 18. L.A. 5 visits-serviced Provider not enrolled 19. and 20. Stipulations 21. R.R. 3 visits-serviced Provider not enrolled 22. and 23. Stipulations 24. L.S. 1 visit-serviced Provider not enrolled 25. S.K. 3 visits-serviced Provider not enrolled 26. through 28. Stipulations 29. E.C. 12 visits-serviced Provider not enrolled 30. Stipulation After the review and examination of the claims submitted within the cluster sample, Nurse Stiver concluded the above services billed to the Agency were not performed by Petitioner. She opined that either or both of Petitioner's employees, Justo Lugo and Phillip Nguyen (PAs) and/or Andrea McDonald (ARNP) provided or assisted in providing services. As non-enrolled providers in the Medicaid program, the PAs and the ARNP’s participation in providing services to Medicaid recipients and/or participation in assisting Petitioner in providing medical services and/or participation in Petitioner's billing Medicaid for medical services to Medicaid recipients violated Medicaid policy. Respondent established that the Medicaid program payments for services provided by an individual not enrolled as a provider in the Medicaid program are overpayments of which the Agency is entitled to full recoupment. After the reviews and the analysis by Nurse Stiver and Dr. Griffin, using the Agency's formula for calculating the extrapolated overpayments, the Agency determined overpayment in the amount of $64,453.74 to have occurred. Based upon these findings, the Agency issued a Preliminary Agency Audit Report (PAAR) letter setting out the overpayment amount of $64,453.74 and inviting Petitioner to submit additional documentation. Petitioner's additional documentation submittals were reviewed by the Agency. The post-PAAR review resulted in a reduction of overpayment to $52,850.82 as the total overpayment for all claims considered, and sought to be recovered from Petitioner by the Agency. The Agency's worksheets resulting in the $52,850.82 overpayment included: (1) the medical record review summary; (2) a spreadsheet setting out the names of the recipients, the dates of service, the procedure billed, the amount paid by the Agency, the amount allowed by the Agency, and the resulting overpayment; (3) the overpayment calculation using cluster sampling; (4) the patient worksheets, or claims; and (5) the procedure code summary of the claims in the universe, as defined in Section 409.913, Florida Statutes (2000). The formula used by the Agency is a valid statistical formula, the random sample used by the Agency was statistically significant, the cluster sample was random, and the algebraic formula and the statistical formula used by the Agency are valid formulas. The Agency's data and calculations were reviewed by Ian McKeague, Ph.D. (Dr. McKeague). He reproduced the calculations and concluded that $52,850.82 is the correct overpayment amount made by Medicaid to Petitioner. Petitioner produced neither written authority nor expert testimony contesting the validity of the statistical formula and Dr. McKeague's resulting calculation of overpayment. Nurse Stiver, with over 14 years employment with the Agency, worked with the Medicaid policies and handbooks. She worked with Mr. Tapining on the audit of Petitioner documents. Specifically, she reviewed Petitioner's records for compliance with Medicaid policy, to ensure that the services billed are the services Medicaid paid for and that those services met all aspects of Medicaid policy. Nurse Stiver's investigation and review revealed specific instances in which the paid claims show that the PAs and/or the ARNP, not Petitioner himself, provided the services to Medicaid patients. In each case where the Agency determined Petitioner was not entitled to payment, Nurse Stiver reviewed the medical records and determined that the ARNP or one of the PAs, who were not enrolled in the Medicaid program, actually rendered services to Medicaid recipients. Her determination was based upon her many years of nursing experience that the person rendering the services is the person who documents the services rendered. From her review, it appeared that the ARNP or a PA (not enrolled), not Petitioner, documented the service billed to and paid by Medicaid. Services rendered by an ARNP or a PA who is not enrolled as a provider in the Medicaid program cannot be compensated by the Medicaid program. Petitioner argued that he provided all Medicaid services billed to Medicaid and, on those rare occasions reviewed by Nurse Stiver, his employees (either the ARNP or the PAs), who by happenstance would be present in the treatment room, aided him by merely documenting services he himself rendered to the Medicaid patients. Petitioner presented an alternative argument that on other of those rare occasions reviewed by Nurse Stiver, his employees would be in the room when Petitioner actually provided services to Medicaid patients, and, while he was providing those services, he would simultaneously dictate to his employee who would transcribe his dictations on the Medicaid forms. Petitioner elected not to compel attendance by subpoena of his employees, even though the final hearing was continued to provide Petitioner an opportunity to do so. Petitioner's argument, that the proposed testimony by his employees would have been sufficient to challenge the Agency determination that Petitioner's billing was for services performed by a provider who was not enrolled in the Medicaid program, is without a foundation in fact and rejected. The Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook provides, in part, that "Records must be retained for a period of at least five years from the date of service." The handbook goes on to provide in pertinent part: PAs must meet the general Medicaid provider enrollment that are contained in Chapter 2 of the Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook, HFCA-1500 and Child Health Check- Up 221. In addition, PAs must follow the specific enrollment requirements that are listed in this section. * * * PAs must meet the provider requirements and qualification and their practice must be fully operational before they can be enrolled as Medicaid providers. * * * If a PA is employed by or contracts with a physician who can enroll as a Medicaid provider, the physician must enroll as a group provider and the PA must enroll as a treating provider within the group. * * * Services provided by a PA under the direct supervision of a physician may be billed using the physician's provider number instead of the PA's provider number. Direct physician supervision means the physician: (*) Is on the premises when the services are rendered, and (**) reviews, signs, and dates the medical record. * * * Medical records must state the necessity for and the extent of services provided. The following minimum requirements may vary according to the services rendered: * * * Note: See the service-specific Coverage and Limitations Handbook for record keeping requirements that are specific to a particular service. Providers who are not in compliance with the Medicaid documentation and record retention policies described in this chapter may be subject to administrative sanctions and recoupment of Medicaid Payments. Medicaid payments for services that lack required documentation or appropriate signatures will be recouped. Note: See Chapter 5 in this handbook for information on administrative sanctions and Medicaid payment recoupment. Petitioner, by signing a Medicaid provider agreement, agreed that all submissions for payment of claims for services will constitute a certification that the services were provided in accordance with local, state, and federal laws, as well as rules and regulations applicable to the Medicaid program, including the Medical Provider Handbooks issued by the Agency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, enter a final order requiring Petitioner, Mazhar G. Nawaz, M.D., to repay Respondent the principal amount of $52,850.82 plus interest as provided in Section 409.913, Florida Statutes (2002). DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 2004.
