The Issue Whether Respondent's certification as a support coordinator under the Medicaid waiver program should be renewed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating persons to be certified as support coordinators under the home and community based services program. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent, Leonel Mederos, was certified as a support coordinator and did business through his company, Las Americas Support Services. For the period 1992 through 1995, Karlene Peyton was the program administrator for the Department's developmental services program which was responsible for the support coordinators under the home and community based services program. The developmental services program provides services to clients developmentally disabled, e.g., persons who are mentally retarded, have autism, cerebral palsy or spina bifida. Developmentally disabled persons are entitled to receive benefits such as supportive living services, employment services, training services, residential services, and case management services. The Department administers such services pursuant to Chapter 393, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10F-13,Florida Administrative Code. As part of the system to provide services to the developmentally disabled, the home and community based services program (HCBSP) was established under the Medicaid program. This program adds a support coordinator who is not employed by the Department but who serves as a case manager for the client. In order to qualify under the HCBSP, clients must be Medicaid eligible and have the specified range of disability. For example, a client who is mentally retarded would be evaluated based upon their IQ level and deficiencies in activities of daily living. In the instant case, the persons providing assistance or case management to the developmentally disabled client are designated as waiver support coordinators. The waiver support coordinators are Medicaid providers. When the Department established the waiver support coordinators program, it promulgated statewide policies and written guidelines to regulate the system. It also developed district specific guidelines or policies. One policy, for example, is the limitation on the number of cases assigned to each support coordinator. A waiver support coordinator may not have more than thirty-five (35) clients. Respondent had been an employee with the Department at the time the waiver support coordinators program was established in Dade County. He left the agency to become, and was certified as, a Medicaid waiver support coordinator under the home and community based services program. Respondent qualified Las Americas Support Services as an entity through which waiver support coordinators might work. In order to become certified Respondent was required to complete training requirements related to statewide and district training. Topics covered in the training included Department rules and policies related to the Medicaid waiver program, support plans, plan implementation, services, record keeping, documentation of services and billing, and the use of the Department's computer system. As part of the application package completed on or about May 20, 1993, Respondent executed assurances which are part of the Medicaid provider agreement. The assurances are Respondent's representation to the Department that he will comply with specific conditions. These assurances provided, in pertinent part: 3. All individuals employed as support coordinators will meet the minimum require- ments of a bachelors degree in a human service field and two years of experience with individuals who have a developmental disability. Evidence of these qualifications will be maintained in each individual's employee personnel file. * * * 6. The provider shall maintain financial records in accordance with a recognized system of accounting to accurately reflect the details of the business and shall undergo an annual financial audit of its support coordination program, which may be part of an agency-wide audit. * * * 21. The provider assures that it will maintain the client central record in accordance with 393, F.S. * * * 24. The provider assures compliance with requirements of Chapter 393, F.S. and the proposed DS/Home and Community Based Services Waiver Rule, 10F-13, F.A.C. * * * 27. The provider assures that no more [than] thirty-five individuals will be assigned to a support coordinator who is serving Developmental Services HCBS waiver clients. * * * 29. The provider understands that payment for independent support coordination services is made from state and federal funds and that any falsification or concealment of a material fact may be prosecuted under state and federal laws. The provider further understands that such falsification or concealment is a breach of the DS/HCBS certification and may result in cancellation of same by the department. * * * 31. The provider agrees to return to the department any overpayments received that were disbursed to the provider by the depart- ment. In the event that the department discovers an overpayment has been made, the department will notify the provider of such a finding. Except for provided in No.32 below, the provider agrees to make repayment within thirty (30) days of recipt (sic) of such notification unless the parties are able to agree upon an alternative schedule. Respondent attended and completed the statewide training portion for certification in June, 1993. He completed the district training (with information pertinent specifically to District 11) in July, 1993. He was fully certified to perform as a support coordinator from July 1, 1993 through July 1, 1994. In June, 1994, as part of the recertification process, Respondent executed another assurances agreement. Subsequently, his certification was renewed for the period September 1, 1994 through February 28, 1995. This second assurances agreement, while not identical to the first, in substance had the same provisions as those outlined above in paragraph 17 above. For each client to be served by a waiver support coordinator, a support plan must be developed that identifies the specific services needed by the client. Such plan is developed with input from the client, the client's family, as well as the service providers who are to provide the needed services. The driving force to establish the support plan must be the client's individual needs. Once the support plan is in place the services coordinator must verify that the services are properly and satisfactorily delivered to the client. The coordinator must keep accurate case notes reflecting the date, time, and description of all services provided to the client. The documentation maintained by the services coordinator serves to verify that the services were delivered. As part of the process, the coordinator must also have a cost plan which identifies the expenses budgeted for each service the client is to receive. Every cost plan must be submitted to the Department for approval, and only services which have been approved may be billed by the service coordinator. Every support coordinator is required to maintain case notes of all activities performed on behalf of a client. No activity may be billed to the Medicaid waiver program which is not supported by case notes reflecting the identity of the client, the date of the service, the time of the service and the description of the service. At all times material to this case, the support coordinators billed time based upon quarter hour increments. For example, one through fifteen minutes was billed as one unit, sixteen through 30 minutes as two units, and so on for a total of 4 units per hour. Each support coordinator was responsible for logging their billing units directly into the Department's computer system. Only services which have been approved may be billed and may not include administrative duties such as faxing, copying, transferring case records or other office functions which are included in the rate paid to support coordinators. Each support coordinator is subject to a review wherein Department personnel audit client records to determine compliance with the Medicaid program policy requirements. In November, 1994, Department personnel were reviewing the qualifications of two persons employed as support coordinators through Respondent's company. When Respondent could not produce either the original degrees or authenticated transcripts for the two coordinators (which would evidence the requisite degree required for the coordinators), Respondent was instructed to return all case records assigned to the two workers to the Department. When the case records were returned, the Department discovered billing discrepancies. For example, it discovered Respondent had overbilled for certain clients and had billed for services not allowed. When this was uncovered, the Department elected to perform an in-depth review of the Respondent's business record keeping. The materials reviewed were from Respondent who was responsible for their origin and accuracy. From November 1994 through February 1995, the Department attempted to reconcile Respondent's case records with the billing which had been submitted to the agency by the Respondent. As a result of this audit, it is found the Respondent overbilled by billing more units that were documented. The Respondent overbilled by billing for services which are not allowed and had not been approved. The Respondent overbilled by billing for services provided by an unqualified services coordinators for whom appropriate documentation has not been provided. The Respondent overbilled by exceeding the amount of an authorized payment thereby making a payment not approved by the Department. In addition to the foregoing, the Respondent attempted to serve seventy (70) clients. Such number exceeds the number of clients a services coordinator is authorized to have. Based upon the foregoing, the Department decided on March 1, 1995 not to renew Respondent's certification. Respondent timely challenged that decision. The application and assurances executed by Respondent provided a notice that the failure to comply with the Medicaid waiver policies constitutes grounds for denying or cancelling certification in the program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order affirming the agency action letter of March 1, 1995, which determined not to renew the Respondent's certification. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of January, 1997. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 1997. APPENDIX Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 12, 14 through 23, 25 through 31, and 33 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 13, the assurances contained, in substance, the same provisions but were not identical to the first ones executed by Respondent. With regard to paragraph 24, it is accepted that Respondent received a warning regarding soliciting clients otherwise rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the record. With regard to paragraph 32, it is accepted that Respondent was offered assistance for remediation purposes and was not singled-out for disparate treatment; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or argument or comment. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: 1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are rejected as argument, comment, or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Myron M. Gold, Esquire FOX AND GOLD, P.A. 2900 South West 28th Terrace Miami, Florida 33133 Hilda A. Fluriach, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, N-1014 Miami, Florida 33128 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard A. Doran, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee,Florida 32399-0700
Conclusions THIS CAUSE came on for consideration before the Agency for Health Care Administration, which finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency issued the above-named Respondent the attached Administrative Complaint. (Ex. 1) 2. The Respondent requested an administrative hearing, but subsequently withdrew the request for hearing. (Ex. 2) Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 3. The findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Administrative Complaint are adopted and incorporated by reference into this Final Order. 4. The Respondent’s license is REVOKED. 5. In accordance with Florida law, the Respondent is responsible for retaining and appropriately distributing all client records within the timeframes prescribed in the authorizing statutes and applicable administrative code provisions. The Respondent is advised of Section 408.810, Florida Statutes. 6. In accordance with Florida law, the Respondent is responsible for any refunds that may have to be made to the clients. 7. The Respondent is given notice of Florida law regarding unlicensed activity. The Respondent is advised of Section 408.804 and Section 408.812, Florida Statutes. The Respondent should also consult the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. The Respondent is notified that the cancellation of an Agency license may have ramifications potentially affecting accrediting, third party billing including but not limited to the Florida Medicaid program, and private contracts. Filed December 17, 2013 10:36 AM Division of Adnhinistrative Hearings ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on this le day of Meeenher. 2013. Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary Agency for Heglth Care Administration
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregs cing was furnished to the the peso named. below by electronic mail or the method designated on this {2 ay of > 2013. Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Shaddrick Haston Facilities Intake Unit Assisted Living Unit Manager Agency for Health Care Administration Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) Katrina Derico-Harris Medicaid Accounts Receivable Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Donah Heiberg, Field Office Manager Local Field Office Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Shawn McCauley Medicaid Contract Management Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Sharon Jones, Assistant General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Thomas J. Walsh IJ, Esquire Clay B. Adkinson, Esquire Presiding Officer Adkinson Law Firm Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 1207 (Electronic Mail) DeFuniak Springs, FL 32435 ee ee (U.S. Mail) NOTICE OF FLORIDA LAW 408.804 License required; display.-- (1) It is unlawful to provide services that require licensure, or operate or maintain a provider that offers or provides services that require licensure, without first obtaining from the agency a license authorizing the provision of such services or the operation or maintenance of such provider. (2) A license must be displayed in a conspicuous place readily visible to clients who enter at the address that appears on the license and is valid only in the hands of the licensee to whom it is issued and may not be sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred, voluntarily or involuntarily. The license is valid only for the licensee, provider, and location for which the license is issued. 408.812 Unlicensed activity. -- (1) A person or entity may not offer or advertise services that require licensure as defined by this part, authorizing statutes, or applicable rules to the public without obtaining a valid license from the agency. A licenseholder may not advertise or hold out to the public that he or she holds a license for other than that for which he or she actually holds the license. (2) The operation or maintenance of an unlicensed provider or the performance of any services that require licensure without proper licensure is a violation of this part and authorizing statutes. Unlicensed activity constitutes harm that materially affects the health, safety, and welfare of clients. The agency or any state attorney may, in addition to other remedies provided in this part, bring an action for an injunction to restrain such violation, or to enjoin the future operation or maintenance of the unlicensed provider or the performance of any services in violation of this part and authorizing statutes, until compliance with this part, authorizing statutes, and agency rules has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the agency. (3) It is unlawful for any person or entity to own, operate, or maintain an unlicensed provider. If after receiving notification from the agency, such person or entity fails to cease operation and apply for a license under this part and authorizing statutes, the person or entity shall be subject to penalties as prescribed by authorizing statutes and applicable rules. Each day of continued operation is a separate offense. (4) Any person or entity that fails to cease operation after agency notification may be fined $1,000 for each day of noncompliance. (5) When a controlling interest or licensee has an interest in more than one provider and fails to license a provider rendering services that require licensure, the agency may revoke all licenses and impose actions under s. 408.814 and a fine of $1,000 per day, unless otherwise specified by authorizing statutes, against each licensee until such time as the appropriate license is obtained for the unlicensed operation. 3 (6) In addition to granting injunctive relief pursuant to subsection (2), if the agency determines that a person or entity is operating or maintaining a provider without obtaining a license and determines that a condition exists that poses a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of a client of the provider, the person or entity is subject to the same actions and fines imposed against a licensee as specified in this part, authorizing statutes, and agency rules. (7) Any person aware of the operation of an unlicensed provider must report that provider to the agency.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should continue to receive services of incontinence supplies from Respondent.
Findings Of Fact William suffers from Spina Bifida (SB), having been born with SB, and is confined to a wheelchair. Among other things, SB affects his bladder and urinary tract system. William is now 17 years of age. William must catheterize each day. If he does not, bladder infections will occur, which in turn will lead to kidney problems. William is in need of diapers, which assist in preventing infections. As a result of SB, William also suffers from incontinence. He is in need of diapers. In addition to helping his medical condition, the diapers help to maintain William’s self-esteem when he is around his classmates and others. There is no dispute that William has a disability, that he needs diapers, and that he is eligible for the service. As of November 1, 2001, the Department terminated the services of providing diapers to William because there were “insufficient funds with which to continue funding the service,” with such service being “funded solely through the Department’s Individual Family Supports [IFS] or General Revenue.” The Department provided written notification of the termination by letter dated March 15, 2002. Ms. St. Pierre was orally notified by William's Support Coordinator on November 15, 2001; shortly thereafter, a letter was to be sent to Ms. St. Pierre from the Department explaining the reason for the termination. No evidence was presented to show that the letter was sent. IFS is funded by general revenue dollars. The providing of William's service--providing diapers-- is through general revenue. William is continuing to receive the service pending the outcome of the instant case. Only recently, in or around July 2002, Ms. St. Pierre became re-employed after having been unemployed for approximately three months. The focus of the instant matter is not on William’s eligibility for services but on the Department’s limited funds and on the spending-prioritization policies adopted by the Department and approved by the Florida Legislature. One of the documents that the Department relies upon for the termination of William’s service is the “Developmental Disabilities Home and Community Based Services Waiver Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Spending Plan Instructions” (Spending Plan). The Spending Plan states in pertinent part: By June 30, 2001, the Department of Children and Families expects to serve 25,002 persons through the Developmental Disabilities Home and Community Based Services Waiver (Waiver). . . . In order to be able to serve the greatest number of persons possible within the legislative appropriation for Waiver services, the Department will implement a number of strategies to ensure that appropriate Waiver services are provided in the most cost-effective manner. . . . * * * Spending Plan priority for FY 01-02: Remaining persons from July 1, 1999 waiting list--350 persons who will be served during July and August 2001. Cramer v. Bush class members--estimated 20 persons who will be served upon request, throughout the fiscal year. Persons who are determined to be [in] crisis who were not on the original waiting list--estimated at 10 persons per month and to be served throughout the fiscal year. Persons discharged from the Mentally Retarded Defendant Program. Persons who have become clients since July 1, 1999, in date order (new waiting list)--projected to be approximately 6,284 persons remaining to be phased in between March 2002 and June 2002, subject to vacancies on the Waiver and available funding. The list of such individuals will be developed at the central office; persons will be served in date order, based on the date the individual became a client. In order to serve the estimated 6,774 individuals who are projected to want and need Waiver services during FY 01-02, enrollment on the Waiver will be phased in as described above. Compliance with the Spending Plan Compliance with the approved Spending Plan for FY 2001-2002 is required of all Department employees. The Central Office will monitor all enrollment activity and notify districts when an individual has been enrolled on the Waiver, and to proceed with the provision of services. The Central Office of the Developmental Disabilities Program will review and process District requests for assignment of a Waiver slot, based on the District's "crisis" determination. Upon completion of the Central Office review, where the Central Office has confirmed a determination of "crisis", the District will be notified when the individual is enrolled on the Waiver, and to proceed with the provision of services. The use of non-Waiver funds (Individual and Family Supports (IFS) budget category) to fund services for additional persons who are awaiting enrollment on the Waiver is prohibited. Personal Care Assistance Services As required by Medicaid regulations, the Department must require the use of regular Medicaid State Plan services when the individual is eligible to receive the services through the Medicaid State Plan. Provision of Waiver services must also comply with federally approved service definitions. Developmental Disabilities currently provides personal care assistance services to 1,232 children. Some of these children may be eligible under regular Medicaid EPSDT (Early, Periodic Screening, Diagnosis & Treatment) coverage. Medicaid state plan covers Personal Care Assistance for children who are eligible to receive nursing services. Children eligible for personal care assistance under Medicaid state plan must receive the service through this funding. [The ensuing five paragraphs continue to discuss children, the Medicaid state plan, and the Waiver.] New requests for personal care assistance will be assessed first to determine whether [the] Medicaid state plan is appropriate. If this is not appropriate, the need for coverage under the Waiver will be made according to the federally approved service description. * * * Require Use of Waiver Funding, where available Because of limited funding and the need to maximize the use of General Revenue funds by obtaining federally matching funds wherever possible, Individual and Family Supports (IFS) funding is no longer available for persons who are eligible to receive Waiver-funded services, but who have refused services funded through the Waiver. Some people who are eligible have rejected services funded through the Waiver. The Department will offer Waiver services to those individuals. For those who continue to refuse services funded through the Waiver, IFS expenditures will be discontinued due to lack of funding, with appropriate due process notice. Maximize Federal Funding Similarly, effective immediately, all covered Waiver services must be provided through Waiver funding. The purchase of Waiver billable services through the IFS budget category is no longer allowable, unless the Central Office has approved an exception. As to the Spending Plan, as it relates to spending at the local level, the Department's local districts submit their needs to the Department and the Department determines the allocations. The Department determines how the dollars will be spent. The Department also relies upon the following document: "Developmental Disabilities Program Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Spending Plan, Interim Notice To Individuals Seeking Services From The Florida Developmental Disabilities Program"--Revised September 2001--hereinafter, Interim Notice. The Interim Notice addresses the Waiver program and provides in pertinent part: The Agency for Health Care Administration, the State Medicaid Agency, and the Department of Children and Family Services have requested permission from the Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), to add 450 additional persons to the Florida Developmental Services Home and Community- Based Services Waiver (Waiver) between now and March 1, 2002. At this point, with the funding appropriated by the Florida Legislature for fiscal year 2001-2002, the Department anticipates that it will enroll no more than 450 persons on the Waiver before March 1, 2002. The persons who will be enrolled on the Waiver out of these available slots or vacancies are as follows: No more than 350 persons who became clients of the Developmental Disabilities Program prior to July 1, 1999, and who wish to be enrolled on the Waiver. No more than 80 persons who have become clients of the Developmental Disabilities Program after July 1, 1999, who are determined to be in a life-threatening crisis. . . . All individuals currently residing in private ICF/DDs who, after choice counseling, request community-based placement and are determined by the state's treatment professionals to be appropriate for community-based placement. You may have heard that the Florida Legislature appropriated $78,000,000 in additional funding to community-based services individuals with developmental disabilities. However, only about $20,000,000 of this appropriation will be available to enroll new individuals on the Waiver. About $58,000,000 of the appropriated amount for community-based services for fiscal year 2001-2002 is needed to continue funding services for individuals who were enrolled on the Waiver last year. . . . William's mother did not receive a copy of the Interim Notice. Additionally, the Department relies upon the following document: "Developmental Services Home and Community-Based Services Waiver Services Directory." This document too addresses the Waiver program. Further, the Department relies upon two legislative conference reports for fiscal year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. The two conference reports are instructive. The "Conference Report on Senate Bill 2500: General Appropriations for 1999-2000" provides in pertinent part: From the funds in Specific Appropriation 381, $20,000,000 in recurring Tobacco Settlement Trust Fund and $25,259,108 in Operations and Maintenance Trust Funds are provided to meet the needs of developmental services participants based on the individuals' most recent support plans. This lump sum is a continuation of the 1998-99 appropriation based on a redesigned system. Priorities for this funding, in order, are as follows: 1) Transitions for those requesting transfers from Intermediate Care Facilities for the Developmentally Disabled (ECF/DD) institutional placements into Home and Community Based Waiver residential placements, and 2) Meeting the needs of identified under-served participants in the Home and Community Based Waiver Services . . . A budget amendment for the release of all or a portion of this lump sum is contingent upon accurately reporting the needs of those persons who are under-served waiver participants to the legislature. The "Conference Report on House Bill 2500: General Appropriations Act FY 2000-2001" provides in pertinent part: Funds in Specific Appropriation 344 and 339 are provided to meet the needs of developmental services Medicaid Waiver participants based on the individuals' most recent support plans. Priorities for this funding, in order, are as follows: 1) Transitions for those requesting transfers from Intermediate Care Facilities for the Developmentally Disabled (ECF/DD) institutional placements into Home and Community Based Waiver residential placements or other community waiver services, and 2) Meeting the needs of identified under served participants in the Home and Community Based Waiver Services . . . The Medicaid waiver services mix must be fully met for all eligible participants before funds are transferred to non-Medicaid covered services with the exception of room and board payment. . . . No conference report for the fiscal year 2001-2002 was presented by the Department. The Department relies upon several other documents that pertain to the Developmental Services Home and Community-Based Services waiver. The testimony of the Department's witness, as to the Department's funding, focused primarily on the Waiver program, not general revenue. The focus of Department's documents is the Waiver program, not general revenue. The Department's evidence of lack of general revenue funds is insufficient.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order reinstating the providing of diaper services to William Alaire. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 26th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Wendy St. Pierre Qualified Representative 1295 Savoyard Way Royal Palm Beach, Florida 33411 Colleen Farnsworth, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 111 South Sapodilla Avenue, Suite 201 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Paul F. Flounlacker, Jr., Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether proposed rules 65G-4.0210 through 65G-4.027 (the “Proposed Rules”) are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes. (Unless specifically stated otherwise herein, all references to Florida Statutes shall be to the 2012 codification.) Specifically, Petitioners assert that the Proposed Rules (1) enlarge, modify, and contravene the specific provisions of the law they purport to implement; (2) contain vague and inadequate standards that vest unbridled discretion in the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (the “Agency” or “APD”); (3) are arbitrary and capricious; and (4) exceed the grant of rulemaking authority in section 393.0662(9), Florida Statutes. Petitioners further argue that, (5) APD failed to follow applicable rulemaking procedures required by sections 120.54(3) and 120.541, Florida Statutes, because APD failed to provide a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (“SERC”) as a part of the rulemaking process.
Findings Of Fact Each of the Petitioners is a recipient of services under the DD Waiver Program. For example, Petitioner Z.L. is a 26- year-old male who was born with Cri-du-Chat syndrome, a fifth chromosome abnormality. As a result, Z.L. is low-functioning, with a non-measurable IQ level (but likely well below the level designating mental retardation). Z.L. speaks only a few words and communicates with some sign language. He is ambulatory, but he is totally dependent on others for all activities of daily living. Z.L. also has some extreme behavioral issues, including self-abuse and physical abuse of others. He lives in a private residence with two other developmentally disabled men. The home where they reside belongs to the family of K.L. (Z.L.’s father and legal guardian). K.L. rents the home for Z.L. and the other two men at less than its actual market value. (The home is a 1,500 square foot home located on 15 acres. K.L. pays about $600 per month rent; the home could rent for two or three times that much.) Z.L. receives the following services under the DD Waiver Program: 24-hour assistance with activities of daily living; behavioral analysis through a certified behavior analyst; and personal care assistance. The cost of his care plan for the previous year was $61,824.22 (i.e., that was the amount paid by the DD Waiver Program). Z.L.’s father and mother are unable to care for Z.L. in their home. The father is CEO of a bank and is involved in other businesses as well. The mother recently suffered closed head injuries as a result of a bicycle accident. She must be cautious about any further head injuries and fears that Z.L.’s aggression could result in physical harm to her. As a result of the implementation of the iBudget process, APD is proposing to reduce Z.L.’s care plan by the sum of $8,175.98. Under the iBudget process, Z.L. has the right to challenge the reduction of his care plan amount in a Fair Hearing before a Department of Children and Families Hearing Officer, which he has done. K.L. has expended about $6,000 in legal fees to contest the reduction of Z.L.’s care plan amount under the new iBudget system. He expects that if the matter goes to appeal, he will expend as much as $70,000 more in legal fees. K.L. has also hired a lawyer for one of Z.L.’s roommates.1/ APD is the state agency responsible for distributing funds from the DD Waiver Program. Prior to implementation of the iBudget process, APD used a four-tier system to provide the level of funds each client would receive.2/ The tier system was more rigid in its application than the iBudget system. Under the tier system, there were strict funding policies in place. For example, if dollars were allocated toward a specific service, e.g., transportation, those dollars could not be used for any other service, such as companion care or personal care. As will be discussed more fully below, the funds provided in the iBudget process are more flexible regarding services they can purchase. The DD Waiver funds administered by the Agency are the funds of last resort. If a service received by a client can be paid for by another agency or source of payment, those must be utilized before the Agency can allocate funds for the service. Development of the iBudget System The 2010 Florida Legislature mandated creation of an iBudget process for distributing funds from the DD Waiver Program. Section 393.0662(1) states in pertinent part: The agency shall establish an individual budget, referred to as an iBudget, for each individual served by the home and community- based services Medicaid waiver program. The funds appropriated to the agency shall be allocated through the iBudget system to eligible, Medicaid-enrolled clients . . . . In developing each client’s iBudget, the agency shall use an allocation algorithm and methodology. The algorithm shall use variables that have been determined by the agency to have a statistically validated relationship to the client’s level of need for services provided through the home and community-based services Medicaid waiver program . . . . The allocation methodology shall provide the algorithm that determines the amount of funds allocated to a client’s iBudget. The agency may approve an increase in the amount of funds allocated, as determined by the algorithm, based on the client having one or more of the following needs that cannot be accommodated within the funding as determined by the algorithm and having no other resources, supports, or services available to meet the need: An extraordinary need that would place the health and safety of the client . . . in immediate, serious jeopardy . . . . A significant need for one-time or temporary support or services . . . . A significant increase in the need for services after the beginning of the service plan year . . . . The agency shall reserve portions of the appropriation for the home and community- based services Medicaid waiver program for adjustments required pursuant to this paragraph . . . . A client’s iBudget shall be the total of the amount determined by the algorithm and any additional funding provided pursuant to paragraph (b). A client’s annual expenditures for home and community-based services Medicaid waiver services may not exceed the limits of his or her iBudget. The total of all clients’ projected annual iBudget expenditures may not exceed the agency appropriation for waiver services. In response to the statutory mandate, the Agency sought input from “stakeholders,” i.e., individuals and families receiving services, family care counsel groups, various provider groups, and organizations such as the Association of Retarded Citizens and the like. APD also looked at how other states had addressed the issue of fund distribution to developmentally disabled individuals. The Agency hired consultants to help make the process as equitable and fair as possible within the limits of its finite budget. One of the Agency’s hired consultants was Dr. Xufeng Niu, chair of the statistics department at Florida State University. Dr. Niu is a recognized expert in the field of statistics and had used his expertise in many areas, including transportation issues such as railroad crossing safety and environmental issues for the Department of Environmental Protection. Dr. Niu has been an academician and consultant since obtaining his Ph.D. in statistics from the University of Chicago in 1991. Dr. Niu’s testimony was extremely credible. APD hired Dr. Niu to develop an algorithm which would be the key feature to any individual budget calculation. APD’s goal in developing the algorithm was to create a formula fitting data patterns of past expenditures, then to mathematically replicate decisions that were made to establish a client’s prior budget amount. Dr. Niu, by way of statistical modeling techniques, developed certain factors which could be utilized by the Agency in determining which clients would receive funds for specific services. Using a catalogue of predictors or variables derived from information provided to him by the Agency, Dr. Niu built a tool to predict what each client’s cost for needed services would be. A Bell Curve was used to keep the application of the variables more symmetrical. In order to effectuate this desire, Dr. Niu utilized a form of “transformation” referred to as the Box-Cox Transformation Family. The Box-Cox Method involved raising data to a different mathematical power as a means of analyzing and applying the data. Dr. Jim McClave, who operates a statistical consulting firm, is an expert statistician and econometrician. His work involves regular stints as an expert in legal proceedings such as this rule challenge matter. His testimony was credible, but less persuasive than that of Dr. Niu.3/ Dr. McClave would have used a log transformation method rather than the Box-Cox method relied upon by Dr. Niu. However, while not discounting the log transformation method, Dr. Niu competently testified that the Box-Cox worked best in this particular case. After the transformation process, it was necessary to narrow down the number of variables to be used. Dr. Niu ultimately decided to use nine specific variables, including: the client’s living setting; whether the client is an adult; the client’s score on the six elements set forth in the Questionnaire for Situational Information (“QSI”) which was provided to all potential recipients of services; the client’s score on the 11 elements in the functional summary section of the QSI; and the client’s score on each of three specific elements in the QSI related to transfers (ability to transfer or change position), hygiene, and capacity for self-protection. Not all variables are necessarily useful and having too many variables causes over- fitting, i.e., trying to fit every situation into a perfect model, which simply is not possible. In fact, it is better to have fewer variables as long as sufficient data can be captured. A statistician must reach a balance on the number of variables in order to find the best model for each project. Dr. Niu’s affirmation of the variables he used is credible. Dr. Niu utilized the Generalized Information Criterion (“GIC”), a method of finding the best set of predictors when creating an algorithm. GIC is a criterion that tries to balance the model by carefully adding more variables without overpopulating the model with too many variables. GIC was used by Dr. Niu in conjunction with the concept of R-squared. That concept is a statistical measure of how well an algorithm fits the data in order to test how well the model predicts. The algorithm developed for use in the Proposed Rules has an R- squared value of .6757, meaning that it accounts for about 68 percent of the variation in the population of APD clients’ DD Waiver expenditures. By contrast to the GIC and R-squared approach, there is in the field of statistics a tool referred to as Residual Standard Error. This tool helps determine whether a model is predicting within two standard deviations and thus has a measure of certainty. The algorithm proposed by APD did not utilize the Residual Standard Error tool, relying instead on the combination of GIC and R-squared. Based upon Dr. Niu’s testimony, APD’s reliance on those tools is reasonable. Dr. Niu developed a number of models for possible use in the iBudget process, settling at last on Model 7b. The model was then applied to the pool of clients who would be affected by the new iBudget system. The client pool contained a large number of different situations and scenarios, as each client and client family is unique despite some similar developmental issues. As a result of these differences, there were cases in which a particular client -- because of his or her needs, or those of his or her family -- did not fit the model. These cases were called “outliers” and had to be treated differently by the Agency. Of the total group of some 26,000 clients, 9.37 percent, or about 2,400 clients, were deemed outliers. Dr. McClave criticized this percentage of outliers, but Dr. Niu's substantiation of the percentage is credible. Dr. Niu utilized actual expenditures by APD for DD Waiver Program clients during the 2007-2008 fiscal year as an indicator of what APD had faced in the past. Those data were recent enough in time to be linked to current assessment data for the clients and to be assigned scores from the QSI. APD also found that the 2007-2008 data more accurately reflected service needs compared to other recent years because the data pre-dated the implementation of the more restrictive Tier system. Dr. Niu did not use clients with less than one year of claims because they may not project the client’s actual annual expenditures. Dental services, environmental services, and durable medical equipment purchases were excluded because they are generally a once-a-year purchase. Four of Florida's 67 counties were excluded from the calculations because they had a much higher cost of living than the rest of the state. Mismatches and clerical errors in clients’ records were also taken into consideration. Age was used as a predictor, but after trial and error Dr. Niu decided upon a single division, i.e., persons under 21 years of age versus persons 21 or older. The rationale was that people under 21 receive services from other sources, like the public school system, for example. Persons over 21 begin to require more services as they age. Dr. Niu considered more factors than just the mathematical statistical accuracy. His extensive work resulted in the best model out of many possibilities. Transportation needs and costs were considered during the stakeholder meetings as a factor to be considered when discussing possible variables. Dr. Niu attempted to use a transportation index in his models, but that resulted in a negative coefficient which is less valid statistically. Applying the current year’s transportation costs did not work. It was also impossible to apply a portion of a year’s transportation costs as an indicator of the entire year’s transportation costs. And, because transportation costs constitute only about 1.5 percent of overall expenses, it was reasonably determined that such costs could be handled by way of an extra needs review. Upon completion of the iBudget system, it was implemented and introduced to all eligible DD Waiver clients. The program was introduced in “waves,” i.e., not all DD waiver clients being served by APD received their iBudgets at one time. Rather, the new system was phased in over time. How the iBudget System Is Employed APD sends an information packet to each client, i.e., each person seeking services to be paid for under the DD Waiver Program. This information packet, called a Welcome Guide, is meant to help the client understand the new system. The Welcome Guide provides a large amount of information, plus education and training possibilities as well. It is understandably difficult to absorb all of the information contained in the packet, but APD opted for completeness rather than over-simplifying the information. Z.L.’s father, who is a licensed attorney and CEO of a bank, expressed difficulty understanding the information contained in the Welcome Guide. However, he testified that he has "some kind of memory block" about DD Waiver services. It is understandable that this would be a difficult thing for a parent to review. The first step of the process for requesting funds for services under the iBudget system is to have the client complete a QSI form. After the QSI assessment is done, the second step of the process is for the Agency to run its algorithm using the previously discussed variables such as age, living arrangement, behavioral status, functional status, and the responses to various personal questions concerning the client. Running the algorithm then creates a dollar value for the services deemed appropriate for the client. The cost of the services is then related back to the appropriation of funds received by APD from the Legislature for providing all needed services. Each client’s sum for needed services is then given a pro rata reduction (or, theoretically, an increase) based on the total funds available to APD. There are then adjustments which can be made to the algorithm amount. For example, if the algorithm amount for a client was greater than the amount set forth in the client’s existing care plan, that client’s “algorithm amount” was reduced to the existing care plan amount, at least temporarily pending further possible actions under the iBudget process. There are specific services identified in the Proposed Rule (at 65G-4.0212(b)(2)), which are indicative of certain health and safety needs. If a client needs any of those services and the cost of those services is greater than the algorithm amount, the greater sum will be substituted. If the algorithm amount was less than the client’s care plan amount but within $1,000 of the existing care plan amount, then the care plan amount was used as the “algorithm amount.” This $1,000 buffer will necessarily mean that a client whose care plan amount is $999 more than the algorithm amount may be treated differently from a person whose care plan amount is $1,001 more than the algorithm amount. Still, the decision to employ a $1,000 threshold is generally reasonable as APD attempts to maintain a sufficient care plan allocation despite the change in systems. APD reasonably believes it would be more time-consuming and costly to deal with changes of $1,000 or less than to simply accept the prior care plan amount (which was based upon the client's needs). If the algorithm amount is less than the amount in the client’s existing care plan, then APD determines whether the reduction is greater than 50 percent of the existing care plan amount. If so, the algorithm amount is raised to an amount equal to at least 50 percent of the existing care plan amount. After application of the above-reference factors and -- if warranted -- adjustments are made, the client is provided an amount which is referred to as the “Target Allocation.” The fourth step in the process is for APD to provide the Target Allocation amount to the client and WSC. Step five of the process is a review to determine whether, notwithstanding the algorithm amount, a client has extra needs that warrant an increase in their ultimate allocation of funds for services. This is called the Extraordinary Needs Review. The first phase of this step is an allocation implementation meeting (AIM), wherein the client is advised about the changes --if any -- to his/her care plan. The client and his or her waiver support coordinator (WSC) are given information about how the reductions may be handled, e.g., that under the iBudget it might be possible to utilize funds to pay for one service even if they are allocated for another service. Or, there may be ways under the iBudget system to merge two or more services into one. One example of that is that in-home personal service caregivers may be allowed to perform other tasks, e.g., they may be able to provide services outside the home setting. After almost a full year of implementing the iBudget system, this portability of funds from one service to another has proven to be one of the most appreciated functions of the new process by waiver support coordinators. If the client and WSC agree that the service needs can be met by the Target Allocation, that amount becomes the client’s iBudget Allocation amount. If the client and WSC do not think the Target Allocation amount is sufficient to meet the service needs, the AIM form is completed and sent to APD for further review. If the health and safety of the client, client’s caregiver, or the public is placed in immediate jeopardy without an increase in the allocation, then an increase will be approved. APD then gives the client notice as to its decision and the final iBudget Allocation is provided. This constitutes step six of the process. Subsequent to setting and providing notice of the final iBudget Allocation, a client may seek supplemental funding for significant one-time or temporary needs. If a significant increase in need for services arises after the beginning of a plan year, a process exists for further consideration of the client’s needs. For new clients, i.e., those who do not have an existing care plan when the iBudget is applied to them, the process is slightly different. First there is an eligibility determination (which has already occurred for existing clients). The client then responds to the QSI. The algorithm is calculated to form the target allocation for the new client. An extra needs review is then performed to make sure that all health and safety needs are being met. It is possible that a new client with exactly the same condition, circumstances, and needs as an existing client (albeit an extremely unlikely occurrence), could receive a larger amount under the iBudget than the existing client. If both clients were assigned exactly the same score under the algorithm, but the existing client’s allocation amount were larger than the care plan amount under the Tier system, then the existing client’s allocation would be reduced. There would not be a concomitant reduction of the new client’s allocation. Although Petitioners pointed out this alleged flaw, no remedy was suggested that would make it possible for APD to make the treatment of two similarly situated clients more equal. The iBudget system is not flawless, but it is an admirable effort toward equality of application to all “clients.” The Agency did not set aside or reserve any portion of their allocation from the Legislature as a Reserve Fund, per se. Rather, APD uses the reserve fund concept as a management tool to be used when making adjustments to an individual client’s final allocation of funds. Thus, during the AIM process or the Supplemental Cost Funding phase, APD might raise a client’s allocation based on funds it has “reserved” under the algorithm calculation. Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs APD published the initial proposed rule on August 3, 2012. The publication included a statement that the Agency had determined there would not be an adverse impact on small business nor would it increase regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 within one year. Petitioners’ contention that clients may have difficulty understanding the welcome packet information and may challenge iBudget Allocations by way of fair hearings does not establish the necessity for SERC.
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration's (the Agency's or AHCA's) decision to award the contract contemplated in RFP No. 0610, Area 9, is contrary to the Agency's governing statutes, the Agency's rules or policies, or the proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact On April 3, 2006, AHCA issued solicitation number AHCA RFP 0610, titled Prepaid Mental Health Plan, AHCA Areas 8 and 9. The RFP sought a Prepaid Mental Health Plan vendor for certain Medicaid recipients in the Agency's Area 9, defined as Indian River, Martin, Okeechobee, Palm Beach and St. Lucie Counties.1/ Lakeview did not challenge the RFP specifications. Lakeview, Magellan and Mental Health Network submitted responses to the RFP. The Agency rejected the response filed by Mental Health Network because it failed to meet a mandatory requirement of the RFP. The Agency accepted Lakeview and Magellan's proposals as responsive to the RFP. The Agency employed three evaluators to review parts of the bids submitted. Those reviewers were Erica Carpenter, George Woodley and Jill Sorenson.2/ After calculation of the average ranking of the scores, Magellan was ranked as the highest scored bidder and Lakeview was ranked second. Terms of the RFP The RFP is made up of an initial two-page transmittal letter and 30 attachments. Relevant to this inquiry are terms contained in the transmittal letter and Attachments A, C, D and E. Attachment A specifies the following with regard to submitting a proposal: 9. Respondent's Representation and Authorization. In submitting a response, each respondent understands, represents and acknowledges the following (if the respondent cannot so certify to any of the following, the respondent shall submit with its response a written explanation of why it cannot do so) * * * The product offered by the respondent will conform to the specifications without exception. The respondent has read and understands the Contract terms and conditions and the submission is made in conformance with those terms and submissions. If an award is made to the respondent, the respondent agrees that it intends to be legally bound to the Contract that is formed with the State. The respondent has made a diligent inquiry of its employees and agents responsible for preparing, approving, or submitting the response, and has been advised by each of them that he or she has not participated in any communication, consultation, discussion, agreement, collusion, act or other conduct inconsistent with any of the statements and representations made in the response. The respondent shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Buyer and its employees against any cost, damage or expense which may be incurred or may be caused by any error in the respondent's preparation of its bid. All information provided by, and representations made by, the respondent are material and important and will be relied upon by the Buyer in awarding the contract. Any misstatement shall be treated as fraudulent concealment from the Buyer of the true facts relating to submission of the bid. A misrepresentation shall be punishable under law, including but not limited to, Chapter 817 of the Florida Statutes. This provision is understood to indicate that the Agency will take all representations at face value, a conclusion that is consistent with the provisions in the following paragraph: 10. Performance qualifications. The Buyer reserves the right to investigate or inspect at any time whether the product, qualifications, or facilities offered by respondent meet the Contract requirements. Respondent shall at all times during the Contract term remain responsive and responsible. . . . If the Buyer determines that the conditions of the solicitation documents are not complied with, or that the product proposed to be furnished does not meet the specified requirements, or that the qualifications, financial standing, or facilities are not satisfactory, or that performance is untimely, the Buyer may reject the response or terminate the Contract. . . . This paragraph shall not mean or imply that it is obligatory upon the Buyer to make an investigation either before or after the award of the Contract, but should the Buyer elect to do so, respondent is not relieved from fulfilling all Contract requirements. Attachment C of the RFP contains the special conditions relevant to this procurement, including the timeline for the solicitation, a description of mandatory requirements, provision for vendor questions and a vendor's conference, and required certifications to be included with any proposals. In terms of mandatory requirements, Section C.7 of Attachment C states: C.7 Mandatory Requirements. The State has established certain requirements with respect to responses submitted to competitive solicitations. The use of "shall", "must", or "will" (except to indicate futurity) in this solicitation, indicates a requirement or condition from which a material deviation may not be waived by the State. A deviation is material if, in the State's sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with the solicitation requirements, provides an advantage to one respondent over another, or has a potentially significant effect on the quality of the response or cost to the state. Material deviations cannot be waived. The words "should" or "may" in this solicitation indicate desirable attributes or conditions but are permissive in nature. Deviation from, or omission of, such desirable features will not in itself cause rejection of a response. Sections C.13 and C.14 of Attachment C address several certifications which must be included with any response to the solicitation. At the end of each of these sections, is a statement in bolded and capital letters stating, "FAILURE TO SUBMIT ATTACHMENT [G , REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS, SIGNED BY AN AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL, or ATTACHMENT J, GENERAL VENDOR ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, respectively] SHALL RESULT IN THE REJECTION OF A PROSPECTIVE RESPONSE. Similarly, Section C.15 states that an original technical response must be accompanied by a proposal guarantee payable to the State of Florida in the amount of $5,000 and made in the form of a bond, cashier's check, treasurer's check, bank draft or certified check. As with Sections C.13 and C.14, Section C.15 ends with a statement in bolded and capital letters, stating, "FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE PROPOSAL GUARANTEE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ORIGINAL RESPONSE WILL RESULT IN THE REJECTION OF A PROSPECTIVE VENDOR'S RESPONSE." Subcontracts for the project are discussed in Section C.20 of Attachment C. This section provides in pertinent part: The vendor shall be responsible for the administration and management of all aspects of the contract and the Prepaid Mental Health Plan resulting from the RFP. This includes all aspects of network management, subcontracts, employees, agents and anyone acting for or on behalf of the vendor. The vendor may, with the consent of the Agency, enter into written subcontract(s) for performance of certain of its functions under the contract. The vendor must have subcontracts with all administrative and service providers who are not salaried employees of the plan prior to the commencement of services under this contract. . . . The vendor must submit signed subcontracts, for a complete provider network in order obtain Agency approval for operation in an area, within sixty (60) days of the execution of this contract, for each proposed subcontracted provider. (Emphasis supplied.) Section C.38 provides the general instructions for response preparation and submission. It specifies that the response shall include a transmittal letter; proof of appropriate licensure or application for same; an accreditation certification; the proposal guarantee; a cross-reference table between the proposal and the RFP scope of service requirements; and the actual technical response. With respect to the technical response, the RFP requires that it be prepared in the order specified, with sections tabbed for ease of identification and evaluation. The RFP further states that "[s]pecific questions to be answered within these sections can be found in Attachment E." Attachment D describes the scope of services sought through the solicitation. It provides a general background for issuing the RFP, describes its purpose, and the type of services that a successful vendor must provide. Included within this Attachment are many of the definitions pertaining to the services sought, and the Attachment outlines both mandatory and optional services to be provided by a successful vendor to enhance the plan's covered services for enrollees. The scope of services provides guidance concerning what must be included for each section of the technical response. Nothing in the RFP required a respondent to submit letters of intent with potential subcontractors as part of its submission in response to the RFP. Attachment E is entitled "Evaluation Criteria." The relevant portions of Attachment E provide the following: Review of Mandatory Criteria. Responses to this solicitation will be evaluated against the mandatory criteria found in Part I, Technical Response Mandatory Criteria. Responses failing to comply with all mandatory criteria will not be considered for further evaluation. Evaluation of Responses. Each response determined to be in compliance with all mandatory criteria will be evaluated based on the criteria and points scale delineated in Part II, Evaluation Criteria. Each response will be individually scored by at least three evaluators having expertise and knowledge of the services required by this solicitation. However, the Agency reserves the right to have specific sections of the responses evaluated by less than three individuals. Responses will be evaluated on a per area basis. 1. Evaluation points awarded will be based on the following point structure: Points The component was not addressed. The component contained significant deficiencies. The component is below average. The component is average. The component is above average. The component is excellent. * * * Ranking of responses. Each evaluator will calculate a total score for each response. The Chairman will use the total point scores to rank the responses by evaluator (response with the highest number = 1. second highest = 2, etc.). The Chairman will then calculate an average rank for each response for all the evaluators. The average rankings for each response shall be used to determine a recommendation for contract award for each area. . . . (Emphasis supplied.) Page 3 of 12 in Attachment E contains Part I, TECHNICAL RESPONSE MANDATORY CRITERIA, referenced in Section E.1, above. It states: This evaluation sheet will be used by the Agency for Health Care Administration to designate responses as qualified or not qualified. If the answer to any of the questions in the table below falls into the "No" column, the response will be designated as "not qualified" and will not be considered for further evaluation. QUESTIONS YES NO 1 Did the response include the signed Attachment G, Required Certifications Form required in Section C.13? 2 Did the response include the completed Attachment J, General Vendor Eligibility Requirements Form as required in Section C.14? 3 Did the response include a transmittal letter, signed by an individual having the authority to bind the vendor, as outlined in Section C.38? 4 Did the response include a copy of the vendor's certificate of authority issued by OIR; or documentation proving application for the certificate as required in Section C.38? 5 Did the response include Attachment DD, Prepaid Mental Health Plan Attestation of Accreditation Status Form Required in Section C.38? 6 Did the response include a proposal guarantee in the original Technical Proposal in the amount of $5,000 as specified in Sections C.15 and C.38? Pages 4 through 12 of Attachment E identified the evaluation criteria used to score responses meeting the mandatory criteria identified in Part I. The general category "Organization and Corporate Capabilities" could receive a total of 80 points. Within that category, points would be awarded under the subcategories labeled legal entity; network; organizational structure; mental health care experience; community coordination and partnerships; management information system; administrative reporting; financial statements; legal actions; financial risk and insolvency protection; surplus fund requirement; and contractor's and subcontractor's facilities and network management. The general category "Operational Functions" could receive a total of 90 points. The subcategories identified for scoring include the service area of proposed plan; outreach requirements; mental health care provider assignment procedures; enrollee services; grievance procedures; quality improvement requirements; care coordination; clinical records requirements; out-of-plan services; cost sharing policies; after hours access; and the proposed subcontractor/provider network. The RFP anticipates that the winning proposer would contract with Community Mental Health Centers (CMHCs) to provide a portion of the services to be provided under the contract awarded pursuant to the RFP. Three CMHSs are located in Area 9: Oakwood Center of the Palm Beaches, New Horizons of the Treasure Coast and South County Mental Health Center. Oakwood Centers of the Palm Beaches and New Horizons of the Treasure Coast both operate multiple locations throughout Area 9. South County Mental Health Center operates from a single office in Delray Beach, Palm Beach County. Both Lakewood's and Magellan's proposals anticipated contracting with all three CMHCs. Neither had binding agreements with any of the CMHCs. Review of the Proposals AHCA found that both Magellan's and Lakeview's proposals met the requirements outlined in Part I, Technical Response Mandatory Criteria. As previously stated, the proposal submitted by Mental Health Network was rejected for not meeting this criteria. The Agency's decision that Lakeview's and Magellan's proposals were responsive to the RFP and would be evaluated is consistent with the terms of the RFP as specified in Attachment E. Both Magellan's and Lakeview's proposals contained information for each of the technical sections of the RFP dealing with provision of a network of providers. Once the submissions were provided to the Evaluators for scoring, no evaluator gave a "0" for any section of either proposal. In other words, the Evaluators were satisfied that each submission provided information for each section identified as mandatory under the scoring criteria. Instructions for scoring proposals that met the requirements of the Technical Response Mandatory Criteria were provided by Barbara Vaughan of the Agency's procurement office, and by Deborah McNamara, who was in part responsible for preparing the RFP. Those instructions directed the Evaluators to use the evaluation criteria contained in the RFP. The instructions specified that each evaluator was to review the proposals separately and under no circumstance were they to discuss their evaluations with anyone other than the Chairman or the Procurement office. The evidence reflects that the Evaluators followed these instructions. There are four sections of the RFP that could be said to address the assembling and coordination of a network providers: Section 3.B (Network); Section 3.E (Community Coordination and Partnerships); Section 3.L (Contractor's and Subcontractor's Facilities and Network Management); and Section 5.M (Subcontracts/Provider Network). With regard to provision of a network under Organization and Corporate Capabilities (Section 3.B of the Detailed Evaluation Criteria Components), the Evaluators were instructed to consider Sections D.19 through D.23 of the RFP, titled Overview of Prepaid Mental Health Plan; General Service Requirements; Medicaid Service Requirements; Additional Service Requirements and Minimum Access and Staffing Standards. The written instructions also directed the Evaluators to consider the following questions with respect to the proposed network: Are traditional community providers represented? Are rural areas sufficiently covered? Is there evidence that sufficient providers are available to cover the full range of required services? Are there innovations or does the vendor propose to expand the current provider community in a positive way? Has the vendor identified and responded to any gaps in the current system of care? Magellan's proposal devoted 24 pages to explaining its proposed network. It affirmed that a contract for inclusion in the network would be offered to all of the providers in Section 409.912(4)(b)(7), Florida Statutes. Magellan advised that it sent proposed letters of intent to all CMHCs in Area 9. It disclosed that two of the CMHCs (Oakwood Center of Palm Beaches and New Horizons of the Treasure Coast) had informed Magellan that they were "owners/partners" with a competitor for the RFP, but that it fully expected both entities to participate in the network should Magellan be awarded the contract. It also noted that it had an existing contractual relationship for commercial patients with one of the CMHCs. Magellan's response regarding this component was responsive to the RFP. Erica Carpenter gave both Lakeview and Magellan a score of 3 for this component. George Woodley gave both vendors a score of 4. Jill Sorenson gave Lakeview a score of 3 and Magellan a score of 2. Under Community Coordination and Partnerships (Section 3.E), the Evaluators were given the following written instructions: Consider: RFP, D. 22 Are there existing collaborative agreements with community partners? If not, what are the plans to develop collaborative agreements? Will the vendor facilitate development of a community system of care? Are there any innovative approaches in the vendor's plans for community involvement? With respect to Community Coordination and Partnerships, Magellan submitted a seven-page description of its relationships with community stakeholders, such as United Way; coordination of the partnership between Magellan and its providers; use of a database of community resources and other aspects of its proposed community coordination. Magellan's proposal for this component was responsive to the RFP. Erica Carpenter awarded both Lakeview and Magellan 3 points for Community Coordination and Partnerships. George Woodley awarded 4 points to each. Jan Sorenson awarded 4 points to Lakeview and 3 points to Magellan. Under Section 3.L (Contractor's and Subcontractor's Facilities and Network Management), the written instructions stated: The adequacy, accessibility and quality of the proposed plan facilities as indicated in the vendor's facility standards plan. Consider: * RFP, D.23, B., 5. * Is there evidence that the facilities are accessible to the disabled? For this category, Magellan made assurances that its subcontractors would meet the seven standards required by AHCA. Magellan provided its facility standards plan as well as its physical security facility assessment protocol for monitoring providers and subcontractors for compliance with these requirements. Magellan also described its credentialing process for providers, its custom of organizational site reviews and its plan for disaster preparedness. Magellan's proposal for this component was responsive to the RFP. Erica Carpenter awarded both Lakeview and Magellan 3 points for Contractor's and Subcontractor's Facilities and Network Management. George Woodley awarded 4 points each and Jan Sorenson awarded 3 points each. Finally, under Section 5. M. (Subcontracts/Provider Network), the written instructions provided: The quality, adequacy, acceptability and responsiveness of the vendor's protocol, policies and procedures for network management, including the types of providers selected, the selection process, and risk determination. Consider: RFP, C.20 What are the minimum criteria providers meet to be included in the network? How do the minimum criteria ensure providers are qualified to work with Severely and Persistently Mentally Ill and Seriously Emotionally Disturbed enrollees? For this category, Magellan provided certification of network provider eligibility, and samples of Magellan contracts for facility, group and individual providers. The proposal states in pertinent part: Partnership. The Magellan of Florida plan for network management is founded on our primary partnership with consumers, the Agency for Health Care Administration, (AHCA), and preferred providers Children's Home Society and Family Preservation Services of Florida, as well as a range of broader collaborative relationships with providers throughout Area 9. Our network will encompass all willing current Medicaid providers, ranging from major community provider agencies such as Oakwood Center of the Palm Beaches, New Horizons of the Treasure Coast, Healthy Solutions Resource Center, Suncoast Mental Health Center, South County Mental Health and Center for Child Development; to leading hospitals such as Fair Oaks Pavilion of Delray Medical Center, St. Mary's Medical Center, and Savannas Hospital; to specialty providers like Hibiscus Children's Center and Mutilingual Psychotherapy Centers. We will help them to continuously improve the quality of their efforts and to comply with State and Federal Medicaid requirements. (Emphasis supplied.) Magellan also provided a reference table that identified requirements under AHCA's contract and where those requirements are met in Magellan's contract and/or addendum. Again, Magellan's proposal with respect to this component was responsive to the RFP. Erica Carpenter awarded both Lakeview and Magellan 3 points for Subcontracts/Provider Network. George Woodley awarded 4 points each, and Jan Sorenson awarded 4 points to Lakeview and 3 points to Magellan. If only these four areas were to be considered, Lakeview's scores were higher than Magellan's for these components of the RFP. These, however, reflect only a portion of the elements to be considered in determining the winner of the contract award. Ultimately, Magellan's proposal received a higher overall score than Lakeview's when all components of the proposals were considered.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing Petitioner's Formal Written Protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2006.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner and her family are entitled to services on account of her developmental disability.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born on September 8, 1981. Seven years ago, she suffered a severe brain injury as a result of five hours of diabetes-induced seizures resulting from low blood sugar. The incident left Petitioner in an entirely dependent state. Presently, at 20 years old, Petitioner has the intellectual development of a two-year-old and requires constant care, seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Petitioner's present condition actually represents a marked improvement from her condition immediately after the seizures and brain injury. Declining to institutionalize Petitioner, her parents have provided the care that Petitioner has needed to regain her abilities to walk and talk (with considerable difficulty) and to use her arms and hands. Despite these dramatic developments, Petitioner still requires as much care as she required immediately after the injury; she cannot, for example, feed herself or maintain continence. Behaviorally, Petitioner presents a considerable challenge due to her nonexistent impulse control and tendency toward explosive outbursts. At 5 feet, seven inches tall and 200 pounds, Petitioner is strong, and she is capable of attacking with unmediated force. Petitioner's father, who is 48 years old, is six feet, one inch tall and weighs 350 pounds. Her mother, who is 42 years old, is at least the size of Petitioner. When infuriated, Petitioner can physically overpower her parents, as well as her 18-year-old and 22-year- old siblings--all of whom have suffered injuries from Petitioner's attacks. Petitioner's father has suffered cellulitis at the site of an injury that he sustained from one of his daughter's attacks. Petitioner has a very limited attention span and frustrates easily. She does not like being closed in, and, when upset, she strikes out. In addition to attacking her caregivers, Petitioner has damaged property in her outbursts. Her father estimates that Petitioner has broken seven motor vehicle windshields--sometimes while the vehicle was in operation. Several times a day Petitioner becomes agitated and engages in physical outbursts. Managing Petitioner's unpredictable and dangerous behavior has placed considerable demands on her parents. Petitioner's father is the senior pastor of North Palm Baptist Church in Miami. Petitioner's mother is an administrative assistant to the Director of Missions of the Miami Baptist Association. Each weekday during the school year, Petitioner leaves home at 6:00 a.m. to ride a bus to her special school, and she returns by bus at 3:30 p.m. Her father must cut short his workday to meet the school bus each afternoon. For respite care, Petitioner's parents seek the assistance of a person capable medically of supervising Petitioner's severe diabetes, such as administering her injections, and capable physically of handling Petitioner's disruptive behavior. Petitioner's father normally sleeps near Petitioner, who wakes up every time her covers come off, which may happen 75 times a night. The intensive, unending care that Petitioner's parents have had to provide their daughter has caused them great stress. For speech therapy, Petitioner's parents seek assistance to remediate Petitioner's extensive verbal deficits. For two years after the incident, Petitioner was nonverbal. Her ability to articulate has slowly improved, but she remains nonverbal at school. For personal services, Petitioner's parents seek the assistance of a person to meet Petitioner when she gets off the bus from school, give her a snack, bathe her, and attend her until her parents come home from work. This person must have the physical capability of ensuring that Petitioner does not injure herself or others during one of her frequent and unpredictable outbursts. Petitioner and her parents moved to Florida from South Carolina in July 2000. Within a month, Petitioner had applied for developmental disability services. However, Petitioner has not been able to obtain general revenue-funded services or Home and Community-Based Waiver services funded by Medicaid. In rejecting Petitioner's request for services, Respondent has relied on two documents: "Developmental Disabilities Home and Community Based Services Waiver Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Spending Plan Instructions" (Spending Plan) and "Developmental Disabilities Program Crisis Identification Tool-- revised 9/2001" (Crisis Identification Tool). Respondent also relies on testimony that Petitioner lacks the funds to provide developmental disability services to all applicants. Although Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner otherwise qualifies for the developmental disability services that she seeks--from both programs--Respondent contends that she does not qualify under the Spending Plan and related documents, which Respondent contends it must apply due to the lack of funds. The Spending Plan states in part: By June 30, 2001, [Respondent] expects to serve 25,002 persons through the Developmental Disabilities Home and Community Based Services Waiver (Waiver). . . . In order to be able to serve the greatest number of persons possible within the legislative appropriation for Waiver services, [Respondent] will implement a number of strategies to ensure that appropriate Waiver services are provided in the most cost-effective manner. . . . * * * Spending Plan priority for FY 01-02: Remaining persons from July 1, 1999 waiting list--350 persons who will be served during July and August 2001. Cramer v. Bush class members--estimated 20 persons who will be served upon request, throughout the fiscal year. Persons who are determined to be [in] crisis who were not on the original waiting list--estimated at 10 persons per month and to be served throughout the fiscal year. Persons discharged from the Mentally Retarded Defendant Program. Persons who have become clients since July 1, 1999, in date order (new waiting list)--projected to be approximately 6,284 persons remaining to be phased in between March 2002 and June 2002, subject to vacancies on the Waiver and available funding. The list of such individuals will be developed at the central office; persons will be served in date order, based on the date the individual became a client. In order to serve the estimated 6,774 individuals who are projected to want and need Waiver serves during FY 01-02, enrollment on the Waiver will be phased in as described above. Compliance with the Spending Plan Compliance with the approved Spending Plan for FY 2001-2002 is required of all Department employees. The Central Office will monitor all enrollment activity and notify districts when an individual has been enrolled on the Waiver, and to proceed with the provision of services. The Central Office of the Developmental Disabilities Program will review and process District requests for assignment of a Waiver slot, based on the District's "crisis" determination. Upon completion of the Central Office review, where the Central Office has confirmed a determination of "crisis", the District will be notified when the individual is enrolled on the Waiver, and to proceed with the provision of services. The use of non-Waiver funds (Individual and Family Supports (IFS) budget category) to fund services for additional persons who are awaiting enrollment on the Waiver is prohibited. Personal Care Assistance Services As required by Medicaid regulations, [Respondent] must require the use of regular Medicaid State Plan services when the individual is eligible to receive the services through the Medicaid State Plan. Provision of Waiver services must also comply with federally approved service definitions. Developmental Disabilities currently provides personal care assistance services to 1,232 children. Some of these children may be eligible under regular Medicaid EPSDT (Early, Periodic Screening, Diagnosis & Treatment) coverage. Medicaid state plan covers Personal Care Assistance for children who are eligible to receive nursing services. Children eligible for personal care assistance under Medicaid state plan must receive the service through this funding. [The ensuing five paragraphs continue to discuss children, the Medicaid state plan, and the Waiver.] New requests for personal care assistance will be assessed first to determine whether Medicaid state plan is appropriate. If this is not appropriate, the need for coverage under the Waiver will be made according to the federally approved service description. * * * Require Use of Waiver Funding, where available Because of limited funding and the need to maximize the use of General Revenue funds by obtaining federally matching funds wherever possible, Individual and Family Supports (IFS) funding is no longer available for persons who are eligible to receive Waiver- funded services, but who have refused services funded through the Waiver. Some people who are eligible have rejected services funded through the Waiver. [Respondent] will offer Waiver services to those individuals. For those who continue to refuse services funded through the Waiver, IFS expenditures will be discontinued due to lack of funding, with appropriate due process notice. Maximize Federal Funding Similarly, effective immediately, all covered Waiver services must be provided through Waiver funding. The purchase of Waiver billable services through the IFS budget category is no longer allowable, unless the Central Office has approved an exception. * * * The legislative proviso language supplied after the hearing by Respondent consists of selections of "Conference Report on SB 2000: General Appropriations for 2001-02--May 1, 2001." The relevant portion states: Funds in Specific Appropriations 374 and 377 are intended to provide Home and Community-Based Services Waiver Services in accordance with a spending plan developed by [Respondent] and submitted to the Executive Office of the Governor for approval by November 1, 2001. Such plan shall include a financially feasible timeframe for providing services to persons who are on waiting lists for fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 and those eligible persons who apply for services during fiscal year 2001-2002. Such persons shall be enrolled in the waiver in accordance with [Respondent's] policy for serving persons on the waiting list. Two other, related documents are relevant. The Crisis Identification Tool identifies several categories of crisis. The first category is a criminal court order. The second category is a danger to self or others, which requires a current exhibition of "behaviors that": result in harm to the person or others that, in turn, creates a life-threatening situation for the person or others or will result in bodily harm to the person or others that will require emergency medical care from a physician if services are not provided immediately. The other categories are "confirmed abuse/neglect," "homeless[ness]," "caregiver unable to give care," and "health issues." Under the unable-caregiver category, the Crisis Identification Tool adds: The individual's current caregiver is expressing extreme duress, is no longer safely able to provide care for the individual due to advanced age, illness or injury and the individual is in immediate need of services in order to remain living with the caregiver or to locate an alternative living arrangement. . . . The remainder of the Crisis Identification Tool warns applicants that there is a waiting list for services in the Waiver program, even for those applicants classified as in crisis. Developmental Disabilities Program Policy Directive PD#01-07, issued September 25, 2001 (Policy Directive), confirms this warning when it warns: With 2001-02 appropriations and the Spending Plan, "[Respondent] will have funding to enroll up to a total of ten persons per month statewide on the Waiver, who are in crisis." Noting that the Crisis Identification Tool will remain in effect until June 30, 2002, the Policy Directive emphasizes that "[t]his policy will clarify the procedures used in determining the ten crisis cases per month statewide in accordance with the 2001-2002 Spending Plan." The Policy Directive describes the procedures for completing and examining a Crisis Identification Tool. The Policy Directive notes that, for applicants posing a danger to self or others, the District's behavioral analyst, local review committee chair, or other appropriate behavior analysis professional must review the Crisis Identification Tool and make a recommendation. After completing its tasks, the District committee sends the Crisis Identification Tool to the Developmental Disabilities central office in Tallahassee. The central office meets one week monthly, through June 2002, to "determine individuals in most critical need." The Policy Directive adds that the "[i]ndividuals who were not selected . . . will be carried forward and reconsidered each month until they are determined to be one of the ten crisis cases for a month or they are served in accordance with the spending plan." In the alternative, the central office may also find that the individual is "not . . . in need of immediate waiver services" and inform the individual of its finding. As noted in the Preliminary Statement, Petitioner seeks developmental disability services in DOAH Case No. 02-1238 and in DOAH Case No. 02-1241. The Developmental Disabilities Hearing Request described in the Preliminary Statement distinguishes between two programs based on funding sources: Medicaid waiver and general revenue. DOAH Case No. 02-1241 requests services under the Home and Community-Based Services Waiver program, in which the federal government has provided Florida with funds, under a waiver of institutionalization requirements, for certain developmental disability services to eligible persons. DOAH Case No. 02-1238 requests services under a state program in which Respondent uses largely, if not exclusively, general revenue funds to purchase certain developmental disability services for eligible persons. The focus of both these cases has not been on Petitioner's general eligibility, but on Respondent's limited funds and Petitioner's eligibility based on spending-prioritization policies that Respondent has adopted and the Legislature has approved. The Spending Plan, Crisis Identification Tool and legislative proviso language approving the Spending Plan all expressly pertain to the Waiver program. The Spending Plan addresses the relationship between the Waiver program with the general revenue-funded program, which is identified at least partly as Individual and Family Supports funding, by warning that persons who have refused Medicaid Waiver-funded services or who are even "awaiting enrollment" in the Waiver program may no longer obtain general revenue-funded services. Under the Spending Plan, Crisis Identification Tool and legislative proviso language, Petitioner is properly denied developmental disability services under the Medicaid Waiver-funded program. In addition to confirming the insufficiency of funds in the Waiver program, these documents demonstrate that Petitioner fails to satisfy a prioritization criterion that could gain her earlier funding. Arguably, Petitioner was entitled to classification as an individual in crisis, either due to her posing a danger to her self or others or due to the "extreme duress" suffered by her parents as caregivers. However, the record permits no basis to overturn the decision of Respondent's central office that, for each month, other crisis applications posed greater urgency. Although the central office should have maintained Petitioner's Crisis Identification Tool for reconsideration each month, the record permits no basis to revisit any of the central office's decisions during the ensuing months, and the term of the procedures governing the use of the Crisis Identification Tool expired at the end of last month. However, the Spending Plan, Crisis Identification Tool, and legislative proviso language do not address the general revenue-funded program. Petitioner is eligible for developmental disability services covered by this program. Respondent's proof of lack of funds in this program is itself insufficient, unsupported by the documentation that accompanies Respondent's same claim as to Medicaid Waiver-funded services.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for covered developmental disability services in DOAH Case No. 02-1238 and denying Petitioner's application for developmental disability services in DOAH Case No. 02-1241. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul F. Flounlacker, Jr., Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Reverend Ronald Satterwhite Qualified Representative 8260 Northwest 172nd Street Hialeah, Florida 33015 Hilda Fluriach District 11 Legal Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 401 Northwest Second Avenue Suite N-1020 Miami, Florida 33128
