The Issue The issues in the case are whether Lynk Services, Inc. (Respondent), violated applicable provisions of the Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Medicaid Developmental Disabilities Waiver Program (Waiver) provides approved health and personal services to qualified recipients. The Agency for Persons with Disabilities (APD) administers the Waiver and conducts audits of participating health care providers. The time period relevant to this case (the "audit period") was April 1, 2006, through June 30, 2006. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was the Waiver Support Coordinator (WSC) for Waiver recipient R.M. At all times material to this case, Premier Health Care (Premier) was the personal care assistance provider assigned by the Respondent to R.M. On March 31, 2006, the Respondent filed with APD, an authorization for personal care services to be provided to R.M. by Premier for the one-year period commencing on April 1, 2006. Premier filed claims for the provision of personal care service to R.M. during at least part of the audit period. The Florida Medicaid program paid the claims. Premier did not provide personal care assistance to R.M. during the audit period. The only service provided to R.M. during the audit period by a Premier employee was supervision of oxygen usage, which is not a personal care service. The Respondent did not file any request to amend the service authorization to reflect the services actually provided by Premier to R.M. An overpayment of $2,006.00 occurred, based on payment by APD for personal care services that were not provided to R.M.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order stating that the Respondent violated applicable requirements as set forth herein and assessing a fine of $1,000 and requiring the submission of an acceptable corrective action plan. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynne Ballou, CEO, WSC Lynk Services, Inc. 2189 Cleveland Street, Suite 207 Clearwater, Florida 33765 Andrew T. Sheeran, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Justin Senior, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Thomas W. Arnold, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in Petitioner's letter of agency action dated March 9, 2012, and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, New Life was issued individual Medicaid provider number 140680900. At all times material hereto, New Life was enrolled as an assisted living facility. At all times material hereto, New Life had a valid Medicaid Provider Agreement with AHCA (Agreement). Under the Agreement, New Life was authorized to provide assistive living services to Medicaid recipients. The Florida Medicaid Assistive Care Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook, effective July 2009, hereinafter Handbook, provides, among other things, requirements of Medicaid home health services providers and sets forth pertinent Medicaid policies and service requirements. The Handbook is provided to each Medicaid provider upon enrollment into the Medicaid program and is available online. Each provider is expected and presumed to be familiar with the Handbook. The Handbook was incorporated by reference into rule 59G-4.025, Assistive Care Services. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, New Life was an assistive care services provider as defined by the Handbook. The Handbook provides in pertinent part: Recipients receiving Assistive Care Services must have a complete assessment at least annually . . . or sooner if a significant change in the recipient's condition occurs . . . . An annual assessment must be completed no more than one year plus fifteen days after the last assessment. An assessment triggered by a significant change must be completed no more than fifteen days after the significant change. The assessment for a resident of a ALF . . . must be completed by a physician or other licensed practitioner of the healing arts (Physician Assistant, Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner, Registered Nurse) acting within the scope of practice under state law, physician assistant or advanced registered practitioner. * * * The assessment for ALF [assisted living facility] residents must be recorded on the Resident Health Assessment for Assisted Living Facilities, AHCA Form 1823. * * * Along with the annual assessment requirement, all recipients receiving ACS [Assistive Care Services] must have an updated Certification of Medical Necessity for Medicaid Assistive Care Services, AHCA- Med Serv Form 035, July 2009, signed by a physician or other licensed practitioner of the healing arts (Physician Assistant, Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner, Registered Nurse) and the Resident Service Plan for Assistive Care Services, AHCA-Med Serv Form 036, July 2009, completed and available in the recipient's case file at the facility. * * * Every ACS recipient must have a service plan completed by the ACS service provider. The Resident Service Plan for Assistive Care Services, AHCA-Med Serv Form 036, July 2009, shall be used for each recipient receiving ACS. The form must be included in the recipient's case file at the facility. The ALF, RTF [residential medical facility] and AFCH [adult family care home] are responsible for ensuring the service plan is developed and implemented. * * * The Resident Service Plan for Assistive Care Services (AHCA-Med Serv Form 036) must be completed within 15 days after the initial health assessment or annual assessment, be in writing and based on information contained in the health assessment. . . . * * * A new service plan is required on an annual basis or sooner if a significant change in the recipient's condition occurs. The new service plan must be completed no more than 15 days after the annual assessment or an assessment because of a significant change in the recipient's condition. * * * In addition to records required by the applicable licensure standards, ACS records that must be kept include: Copies of all eligibility documents; Health Assessment Forms, AHCA Form 1823 . . .; Certification of Medical Necessity for Medicaid Assistive Care Services, AHCA-Med Serv Form 035; The Resident Service Plan for Assistive Care Services, AHCA-Med Serv Form 036; and The Resident Service Log, AHCA-Med Serv Form 037. This documentation must be maintained at the facility, kept for at least five years, and be made available to the Agency for Health Care Administration monitoring or surveyor staff or its designated representative, upon request. . . . * * * ACS documentation may be in electronic format. The original, signed . . . documents must be kept in the recipient's case file in the facility . . . for audit, monitoring and quality assurance purposes. . . . Handbook at P 2-7 through 2-11. AHCA's investigator performed a site visit at New Life on December 8, 2011. The investigator reviewed case files of residents for the service-period covering January 1, 2011, through November 30, 2011 (service-period). AHCA's investigator found deficiencies in the case files of seven residents at New Life: M.B.; R.F.; E.H.; R.J.; I.M.; K.L.; and J.S. Additional documents, not contained in the case files during the site visit, were provided subsequent to the site visit. Regarding Resident M.B., the Health Assessment and the Resident Service Plan were dated August 17, 2010, which was after the service-period; and the Certification of Medical Necessity was dated March 28, 2012, which was not within the service-period and after the site visit. The evidence demonstrates that the case file of Resident M.B. lacked the Health Assessment, Resident Service Plan, and Certification of Medical Necessity for the service- period. As to Resident R.F., the Health Assessment was dated January 1, 2011, which was within the service-period but not up- to-date; the Resident Service Plan was up-to-date; and the Certification of Medical Necessity was dated March 1, 2012, which was not within the service-period and after the site visit. The evidence demonstrates that the case file of Resident R.F. lacked the Health Assessment and Certification of Medical Necessity for the service-period. Regarding Resident E.H., the Health Assessment was dated January 24, 2011, and was up-to-date; the Resident Service Plan was not provided; and the Certification of Medical Necessity was dated September 27, 2002, with no more recent Certification of Medical Necessity. The evidence demonstrates that the case file of Resident E.H. lacked the Resident Service Plan and Certification of Medical Necessity for the service-period. As to Resident R.J., the parties stipulated that the Health Assessment was up-to-date; the Resident Service Plan was not provided; and the Certification of Medical Necessity was dated February 29, 2012, which was not within the service-period and after the site visit. The evidence demonstrates that the case file of Resident R.J. lacked the Resident Service Plan and Certification of Medical Necessity for the service-period. Regarding Resident I.M., the Health Assessment and the Resident Service Plan were up-to-date; and the Certification of Medical Necessity was dated March 1, 2012, which was not within the service-plan and after the site visit. The evidence demonstrates that the case file of Resident I.M. lacked the Certification of Medical Necessity for the service-period. As to Resident K.L., the Health Assessment was dated March 1, 2012, which was not within the service-period and after the site visit; the Resident Service Plan was not provided; and the Certification of Medical Necessity was provided, but the date as to the year was unintelligible even though the month and day were intelligible, i.e., March 1. The evidence demonstrates that the case file of Resident K.L. lacked the Health Assessment, Resident Service Plan, and Certification of Medical Necessity for the service- period. Regarding Resident J.S., the Health Assessment was dated August 22, 2009, which was not within the service-period; the Resident Service Plan was not provided; and the Certification of Medical Necessity was dated February 29, 2012, which was not within the service-period and was after the site visit. The evidence demonstrates that the case file of Resident J.S. lacked the Health Assessment, Resident Service Plan, and Certification of Medical Necessity for the service period. The Director and owner of New Life is Ethel Newton. Ms. Newton has been the Director and owner for the past 13 years. She was not familiar with the Health Assessment form, the Resident Service Plan form, or the Certification of Medical Necessity form. Ms. Newton advised AHCA's investigator that she was not familiar with the forms and admitted same at the hearing. Ms. Newton historically depended upon the assistance of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCF) to complete any required forms. She depended upon DCF until 2005 when DCF closed its local office which had been assisting her. After DCF closed its local office, Ms. Newton depended upon the residents' case managers at New Horizons, an agency where the residents' physicians are located, to complete any required forms. Five of the seven residents had case managers at New Horizons; J.S. and E.H. did not have case managers at New Horizons. E.H. is no longer a resident at New Life. Ms. Newton is willing to cooperate with AHCA and do whatever it takes to have the required forms completed timely and correctly. The evidence does not demonstrate that Ms. Newton intentionally failed to complete the required forms. None of the seven residents were harmed as a result of the deficiencies in the documentation. No evidence was presented demonstrating that New Life has any prior administrative sanction or penalty. No evidence was presented demonstrating that New Life has any prior violations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order: Finding that New Life Assisted Living, Inc., d/b/a New Life Assisted Living Facility, violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-9.070(7)(e) by failing to have in the case files of Resident M.B., Resident K.L., and Resident J.S. a Health Assessment, Resident Service Plan, and Certification of Medical Necessity for the service-period covering January 1, 2011, through November 30, 2011; by failing to have in the case file of Resident R.F. a Health Assessment and Certification of Medical Necessity for the service-period covering January 1, 2011, through November 30, 2011; by failing to have in the case file of Resident E.H. and Resident R.J. a Resident Service Plan and Certification of Medical Necessity for the service-period covering January 1, 2011, through November 30, 2011; and by failing to have in Resident I.M.'s case file a Certification of Medical Necessity for the service-period covering January 1, 2011, through November 30, 2011; Requiring New Life Assisted Living, Inc., d/b/a New Life Assisted Living Facility to enter into a corrective action plan; and Imposing a fine against New Life Assisted Living, Inc., d/b/a New Life Assisted Living Facility in the amount of $1,750.00. S DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 2012, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 2012.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent failed to maintain a service plan for each of four residents, in violation of the Florida Medicaid Assistive Care Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook. If so, an additional issue is the sanctions that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates an assisted living facility known as Izquierdo Home Care I. At all material times, Respondent was enrolled in the Medicaid program as a provider authorized to supply assistive living services to Medicaid recipients at Izquierdo Home Care I. At all material times, Respondent was subject to the Florida Medicaid Assistive Care Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook. The handbook imposed upon Respondent the duty to develop a service plan for each Medicaid recipient not less often than annually. On March 27, 2012, Petitioner's inspector conducted a site visit of Izquierdo Home Care I. At the time of the site visit, the facility had six beds, but only four residents. According to a letter from Petitioner dated March 27, 2012, and delivered to Respondent's representative at the time of the inspection, the following four residents were Medicaid recipients: E. C., R. R., J. H., and A. R. However, according to the questionnaire completed by Respondent's representative at the time of the inspection, only two of the four current residents were Medicaid recipients, although the questionnaire does not identify these residents. In fact, A. R. had been discharged from Izquierdo Home Care I in September 2011. At the hearing, Petitioner's inspector confirmed that Respondent had not billed Medicaid for services for A. R. after the date of discharge. The second resident whose Medicaid status is in question was identified, in Respondent's proposed recommended order, as E. C. Respondent contends in its proposed recommended order that E. C. was not receiving Medicaid at the time of the inspection. If the Proposed Recommended Order were the only notice to Petitioner of Respondent's claim that a second resident was not a Medicaid recipient, the Administrative Law Judge would ignore this assertion because it is not evidence, and, as a defense, it was raised too late. However, the questionnaire, which was admitted as one of Petitioner's exhibits, is evidence that two of the four residents were not receiving Medicaid at the time of the inspection. In assessing the evidentiary record in terms of whether it establishes a third Medicaid recipient, the Administrative Law Judge notes: a) Petitioner has alleged a violation concerning A. R., even though A. R. was no longer a Medicaid recipient at the time of the inspection; b) at hearing, Petitioner's inspector was readily able to read the "query" to confirm that Respondent had not submitted a Medicaid billing on account of A. R. after September 2011 (Transcript 49); and c) as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, Petitioner bears the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. Under these circumstances, Petitioner has proved only that two residents of the facility were Medicaid recipients at the time of the inspection. There is no dispute that current service plans for two Medicaid recipients did not exist at the time of the March 2012 inspection.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order imposing a fine of $2000 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffries H. Duvall, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Executive Center, Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Julia Arrendell, Qualified Representative 13899 Biscayne Boulevard North Miami Beach, Florida 33181 Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Executive Center, Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Stuart Williams, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Executive Center, Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Executive Center, Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
Conclusions THE PARTIES resolved all disputed issues and executed a Settlement Agreement. The parties are directed to comply with the terms of the attached settlement agreement. Based on the foregoing, this file is CLOSED. DONE and ORDERED on this the a l ah, of fiderd , 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 4% ‘ CA kh fo ELIZABETH DUDEK, SECRETARY Agency for Health Care Administration 1 Filed June 26, 2012 2:18 PM Division of Administrative Hearings A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A 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 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. Copies furnished to: Jeffries H. Duvall Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Office of the General Counsel (Interoffice) CYNTHIA A. MIKOS, ESQ. Allen Dell, P.A. 202 S. Rome Ave. - Suite 100 Tampa, FL 33606 cmikos@allendell.com (Electronic Mail) J.D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Mike Blackburn, Bureau Chief, Medicaid Program Integrity Finance and Accounting Health Quality Assurance (via email) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to the above named addressees by U.S. Mail, Laserfiche or electronic mail on this the ZS" day of c JA » 2012. Richard Shoop, Esquire Agency Clerk State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 412-3630/FAX (850) 921-0158 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 11-5089MPI CI. NO. 11-1553-000 HILLSBOROUGH ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS, INC., Respondent. / SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (‘AHCA” or “the Agency”), and Hillsborough Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc. (“PROVIDER”), by and through the undersigned, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. The two parties enter into this agreement to memorialize the resolution of this matter. 2. PROVIDER is a Florida Medicaid provider, provider number 024102498 and was a provider during the audit period, January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009. 3. In its Final Agency Audit Report (constituting final agency action) dated September 2, 2011, AHCA notified PROVIDER that review of Medicaid claims by the Division of Medicaid, Office of the Deputy Secretary, and Medicaid Program Integrity (MPI), Office of the AHCA Inspector General, indicated certain claims, in whole or in part, had been inappropriately paid. The Agency sought recoupment of this overpayment in the amount of $34,317.55. In response, PROVIDER filed a petition for formal administrative hearing. It was assigned DOAH Case No. 11-5089MPI. Hillsborough Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc. C.l. 11-1553-000 - Settlement Agreement 4. Subsequent to the original audit, in preparation for trial, AHCA re-reviewed the PROVIDER’s claims and evaluated additional documentation submitted by the PROVIDER. As a result of the additional review, AHCA determined the overpayment should be adjusted to $27,078.51, plus $5,415.70 in fines and $674.38 in costs for a total due of $33,168.59. 5. In order to resolve this matter without further administrative proceedings, PROVIDER and the AHCA agree as follows: (1) —AHCA agrees to accept the payment set forth herein in settlement of the overpayment issues arising from the captioned audit. (2) The amount in dispute that is now being resolved is twenty-seven thousand seventy eight dollars and fifty-one cents ($27,078.51) on the indebtedness, five thousand four hundred fifteen dollars and seventy cents ($5,415.70) in fines, plus six hundred seventy four dollars and thirty-eight cents ($674.38) in investigative costs for a total of thirty three thousand one hundred sixty eight dollars and fifty- nine cents ($33,168.59). PROVIDER will make an initial payment of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) and the remaining balance to be paid in 6 equal monthly installments. This amount due will be offset by any amount already received by the Agency in this matter. Furthermore, PROVIDER is advised that pursuant to Section 409.913, Florida Statutes, failure to pay in full, or enter into and abide by the terms of any repayment schedule set forth by the Agency may result in termination from the Medicaid program, withholding of future Medicaid payments, or other such remedies as provided by law. Any outstanding balance accrues at 10% interest per year. Full payment will fully and completely settle all claims in these proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings Hillsborough Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc. C.1. 11-1553-000 - Settlement Agreement 6. (DOAH Case No. 11-5089MPI). Should the provider’s enrollment with Medicaid be terminated, the full amount owed will be due within 30 days of termination. (3) In the event any interim payments are received or withheld, by whatever means, prior to the entry of the Final Order, Medicaid Accounts Receivable shall make the adjustment to credit such amounts, dollar for dollar, as quickly as is practicable. (4) Compliance with this repayment agreement fully and completely settles all claims in these proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH Case No. 11-5089MPI). Should the provider’s enrollment with Medicaid be terminated, the full amount owed will be due within 30 days of termination. (5) PROVIDER and AHCA agree that full payment, as set forth above, resolves and settles this case completely. It will release both parties from any administrative or civil liabilities or claims arising from the findings in audit C.I. 11-1553-000. (6) PROVIDER agrees that it will not rebill the Medicaid Program in any manner for claims that were not covered by Medicaid, which are the subject of the audit in this case. Questions regarding procedures for submitting payment should be directed to Medicaid Accounts Receivable, (850) 412-3901. The C.I. number listed on the first page of this agreement must be legibly entered on the check to assure proper credit. Please mail payment to: AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE ADMINISTRATION Medicaid Accounts Receivable — MS # 14 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. 2, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Hillsborough Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc. C.1. 11-1553-000 - Settlement Agreement 7. PROVIDER agrees that failure to pay any monies due and owing under the terms of this Agreement shall constitute PROVIDER’S authorization for the Agency, without further notice, to withhold the total remaining amount due under the terms of this agreement from any monies due and owing to PROVIDER for any Medicaid claims. 8. AHCA reserves the right to enforce this Agreement under the laws of the State of Florida, the Rules of the Medicaid Program, and all other applicable rules and regulations. 9. This settlement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing or error by either party with respect to this case or any other matter. 10. Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, with the exception that the Respondent shall reimburse, as part of this settlement, $674.38 in Agency costs and $5,415.70 in fines. This amount is included in the calculations and demand of paragraph 5(2). 11. The signatories to this Agreement, acting in a representative capacity, represent that they are duly authorized to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the respective parties. 12. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the provisions of the laws of Florida. Venue for any action arising from this Agreement shall be in Leon County, Florida. 13. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between PROVIDER and AHCA, including anyone acting for, associated with or employed by them, concerning all matters and supersedes any prior discussions, agreements or understandings; there are no promises, representations or agreements between PROVIDER and the AHCA other than as set forth herein. No modification or waiver of any provision shall be valid unless a written amendment to the Agreement is completed and properly executed by the parties. Hillsborough Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc. C.1. 11-1553-000 - Settlement Agreement 14. This is an Agreement of settlement and compromise, made in recognition that the parties may have different or incorrect understandings, information and contentions, as to facts and law, and with each party compromising and settling any potential correctness or incorrectness of its understandings, information and contentions as to facts and law, so that no misunderstanding or misinformation shall be a ground for rescission hereof. 15. | PROVIDER expressly waives in this matter its right to any hearing pursuant to sections 120.569 or 120.57, Florida Statutes, the making of findings of fact and conclusions of law by the Agency, and all further and other proceedings to which it may be entitled by law or rules of the Agency regarding this proceeding and any and all issues raised herein. PROVIDER further agrees that it shall not challenge or contest any Final Order entered in this matter which is consistent with the terms of this settlement agreement in any forum now or in the future available to it, including the right to any administrative proceeding, circuit or federal court action or any appeal. 16. This Agreement is and shall be deemed jointly drafted and written by all parties to it and shall not be construed or interpreted against the party originating or preparing it. 17. To the extent that any provision of this. Agreement is prohibited by law for any reason, such provision shall be effective to the extent not so prohibited, and such prohibition shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement. 18. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding on each party’s successors, assigns, heirs, administrators, representatives and trustees. 19. All times stated herein are of the essence of this Agreement. Hillsborough Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc. C.|. 11-1553-000 - Settlement Agreement 20. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect upon execution by the respective parties in counterpart. ROUGH ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS, INC. Dated: “A727 L ZZ 2012 py. UO CW “CCL FECL (Print name) ITS: SP OPC B22 20 Revi OLN 7 AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, FL 32308-5403 ‘ Dated: G/al 2012 Miller Inspector General Dated: bl f .2012 William H. Roberts Dated: Z f_,2012
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's request that the Respondent pay for certain supplies may be denied based on Respondent's limited funding and on Respondent's spending priorities as set forth in a Spending Plan.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Bernice Simon, as a result of having spina bifida, is incontinent of both bowel and bladder. She needs incontinence supplies, and will continue to need such supplies in the future. All parties agree that the Petitioner has a medical need for the incontinence supplies she seeks to have the Respondent continue to provide. On April 19, 2001, Bernice Simon signed a Notice of Eligibility for ICF/DD and Developmental Services Home and Community-Based Services Waiver. It stated "This is to inform you that Bernice Simon has been determined eligible for ICF/DD services or the Developmental Services Home and Community-Based Services Waiver." The form indicates "Client doesn't want the Medwaiver at this time. She can apply in future if she changes her mind." On October 18, 2001, Human Services Counselor Christina Tookes notified Ms. Simon: "I regret to inform you that unless you apply for the Waiver we are unable to provide services at this time. Be also advised that the Department, at this present time, are [sic] not providing any new service to any consumers until further notices by our Legislators from Tallahassee. This is unfortunate, but we are instructed to follow guidelines and procedures mandated by our Department Heads." On March 15, 2002, Ms. Simon was notified that incontinence supplies were terminated due to insufficient funds with which to continue funding the service. The Spending Plan Instructions states include the following: The 2001 Florida Legislature appropriated additional funds for the Developmental Disabilities Program to serve additional persons and annualize services begun during state fiscal year 2000-2001. In order to accomplish the goals established by the Governor and the Legislature, it is imperative that the approved spending plan be implemented and followed. Approved prioritization schedule and policy decisions must be implemented in order to be able to serve the number of individuals funded for state fiscal year 2001-2002. Compliance with the approved Spending Plan for FY 2001-2002 is required of all Department employees. . . . 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. Because of limited funding and the need to maximize the use of General Revenue funds by obtaining federally matching funds wherever possible, 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. 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. The Petitioner was informed of the scope, intensity, and duration of services for which funding by the government was available. She was notified repeatedly that services might be discontinued. By reason of their assets and income, the Petitioner and her husband are not eligible for enrollment in the Home and Community-Based Medicaid Waiver Program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order dismissing the petition in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Colleen Farnsworth, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 111 South Sapodilla Avenue Suite 201 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Bernice Simon 6768 10th Avenue, North, Number 101 Lake Worth, Florida 33467 Paul F. Flounlacker, Jr., Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Jerry Regier, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 202 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.
