The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (Petitioner or Agency), is entitled to a Medicaid reimbursement and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the authority and responsibility of administering the Florida Medicaid Program. As part of this authority, the Petitioner is required to recover Medicaid overpayments when appropriate. See § 409.913, Fla. Stat. (2006). At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was a licensed physician and a Medicaid provider subject to the provisions of Chapter 409. As a Medicaid provider, the Respondent was authorized to provide services to eligible patients but was obligated to comply with the Medicaid Provider Agreement in doing so. The Medicaid Program contemplates that authorized providers will provide services to eligible patients, bill the program and be paid according to the Medicaid standards. All Medicaid providers must practice within the guidelines of the Physicians Coverage and Limitations Handbook and applicable law. Providers may be audited so that it can be verified the process was appropriately followed. In this case, the Respondent was audited. According to the audit findings, the Respondent received payment for services that he did not perform. Dr. Eiber (a physician not part of the Respondent’s practice group) reviewed and signed off on x-ray studies and reports for which the Respondent billed and was paid by Medicaid. Dr. Eiber is a Medicaid provider but he is not affiliated with the Respondent or the Respondent’s group. In order for the Respondent to bill and receive payment for Dr. Eiber’s work, the latter physician would have to be listed and identified within the group in which the Respondent practiced. The Respondent was responsible for all billings for which he received payments. In connection with billing, the Respondent was required to maintain and retain all Medicaid- related invoices or claims for the audit period. In this regard, the Physician Coverage and Limitations Handbook specifies that when a radiological study is performed in an office setting, either the physician billing the maximum fee must have performed or indirectly supervised the performance and interpreted the study; or if a group practice, a member of the group must perform all components of the services. That procedure was not followed. When the Agency disallows a paid Medicaid claim, it must seek to recover the overpayment from the Medicaid provider who received payment on the claim. This is the basis of the “pay and chase” methodology used in the Medicaid program. The claims are paid, subject to audit, and recovery is sought when the claim is disallowed. Based on the audit findings in this cause, the Agency seeks $32,935.96 as an overpayment of Medicaid claims paid to the Respondent. The Petitioner also seeks an administrative fine in the amount of $1000.00. The Respondent was given the results of the audit and afforded an opportunity to respond and provide additional information to the Agency to show that the amounts billed were correct. The Respondent has presented no supplemental information to corroborate the correctness of the claims at issue.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order sustaining the Final Audit Report and finding an overpayment against the Respondent in the amount of $32,9935.96. The Final Order should also impose an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. S DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig A. Brand, Esquire Law Offices of Craig A. Brand, P.A. Grove Forest Plaza 2937 Southwest 27th Avenue, Suite 101 Miami, Florida 33133 Willis Melvin, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Craig H. Smith, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Dr. Andrew C. Agwunobi, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent is liable to Petitioner for the principal sum of $2,284.13, which equals the amount that the Florida Medicaid Program paid Respondent for psychiatric services provided between January 2, 2002, and June 30, 2006, to patients who, at the time of treatment, were residents of custodial care facilities.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA" or the "Agency") is the state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program ("Medicaid"). Respondent Womesh C. Sahadeo, M.D. ("Sahadeo") is a psychiatrist. At all relevant times, Dr. Sahadeo was a Medicaid provider authorized to receive reimbursement for covered services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Exercising its statutory authority to oversee the integrity of Medicaid, the Agency in 2006 performed a "generalized analysis" of claims involving psychiatric services rendered to patients who, at the time of treatment, had been residing in nursing homes, assisted living facilities, or other custodial care facilities. In a generalized analysis, claims within a category of services are reviewed to determine whether each claim meets a particular condition of coverage or falls within a specific exclusion. The conditions and limitations of interest to AHCA in this instance were (a) the requirement that, to be compensable, psychiatric services must be provided in a hospital or physician's office and (b) the corresponding exclusion from coverage of claims for psychiatric services rendered in any other place, e.g. nursing homes or other custodial care facilities. During the period from January 2, 2002 to June 30, 2006 (the "Audit Period"), Dr. Sahadeo had submitted a number of claims seeking reimbursement for psychiatric services provided to seventeen patients who were residents of group homes or other custodial care facilities. Medicaid had paid these claims, and, as a result, Dr. Sahadeo had received payments totaling $2,284.13. Being within the scope of the generalized analysis under way in 2006, these claims came to AHCA's attention. By letter dated November 9, 2006, the Agency informed Dr. Sahadeo that the aforementioned claims would not have been compensable if the patients in question had been seen in their respective residential facilities (as opposed to the doctor's office or a hospital). AHCA demanded that Dr. Sahadeo submit records showing that the psychiatric services at issue had been rendered in an eligible setting, to confirm that the subject claims were within Medicaid coverage. The deadline for compliance with this demand was 15 days after receipt of the letter. Dr. Sahadeo did not respond to the letter of November 9, 2006. Consequently, on December 20, 2006, the Agency issued a Preliminary Audit Report, which notified Dr. Sahadeo that, because he had failed to produce records documenting the place(s) of service as requested, each of the claims under review was now deemed to have resulted in an overpayment. Dr. Sahadeo was given the choice of either remitting payment of $2,284.13 or submitting documentation demonstrating that some or all of the claims were properly paid. The deadline for furnishing additional documentation was 15 days after receipt of the report. Dr. Sahadeo did not respond to the Preliminary Audit Report. Consequently, on February 20, 2007, the Agency issued a Final Audit Report. The Final Audit Report echoed the Preliminary Audit Report in regard to the place-of-service issue. This time, however, the Agency added allegations accusing Dr. Sahadeo of violating Medicaid's record keeping requirements, and it gave notice of its intent to impose a $500 fine for his failure to furnish Medicaid related records on demand. According to AHCA, the total amount due from Dr. Sahadeo was now $2,784.13. Dr. Sahadeo timely requested an administrative hearing, giving rise to this case. Before the final hearing, Dr. Sahadeo produced some medical records underlying some of the claims in question. None of these medical records, however, clearly and unambiguously documents the place of service, the critical fact which at all times during this audit has been the focus of AHCA's interest and concern. At hearing, Dr. Sahadeo presented persuasive evidence (his testimony and that of his office manager, Sonya Robinson) that the psychiatric services behind the claims at issue were, in fact, rendered in his office, and not at the respective residences of the patients. The undersigned finds this to be the case. But the evidence also established——and the undersigned finds——that, in addition to medical records, certain professional or business records were created in connection with each of the subject claims, records which, if retained, would have shown that the patients had come to Dr. Sahadeo's office for treatment. One set of such documents comprised the "sign in sheets" that patients signed upon arrival at the doctor's office. Located at the receptionist's desk, the sign in sheet was a paper on which each patient would write his name, time of arrival, and appointment time. Although a sign in sheet was (or should have been) inscribed by every patient each time he was seen in the doctor's office, Dr. Sahadeo either did not keep copies of these documents or was unable, for other reasons, to make them available for inspection by AHCA. The other set of documents which would have shown that the patients of interest had come to Dr. Sahadeo's office for treatment consisted of the "receipts" that the doctor would sign to confirm that a caretaker had transported the patient from the group home or other custodial facility to the doctor's office for his appointment. During the Audit Period, it was Dr. Sahadeo's practice to sign the receipt and return the paper to the caretaker or driver without keeping a copy for his own records. Consequently, Dr. Sahadeo was unable to make these documents available for inspection by AHCA. Dr. Sahadeo did not satisfy his continuing obligation to retain all of the records relating to the services that he had provided to the patients whose claims AHCA is disputing. Yet, when AHCA paid the Medicaid claims at issue, it did so believing——and in reliance upon the assumption——that Dr. Sahadeo was fulfilling his affirmative duty to provide the underlying services in accordance with all the applicable policies, rules, and laws, including the requirement that records relating to a Medicaid claim be kept for five years. AHCA was mistaken in this regard. As a result of the Agency's mistaken assumption that Dr. Sahadeo was complying with the record keeping requirements, Dr. Sahadeo received from Medicaid a total of $2,284.13 in payments that were not authorized to be paid. This grand total of $2,284.13 constitutes an overpayment that Dr. Sahadeo must return to the Agency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency enter a final order requiring Dr. Sahadeo to repay the Agency the principal amount of $2,284.13, together with an administrative fine of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November, 2007.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in sanctionable conduct in violation of Medicaid laws, as alleged in the April 9, 2012, sanction letters the Agency for Health Care Administration (ACHA) sent to Respondent in the above-styled cases, and, if so, what sanction(s) should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency charged with administering and overseeing the Medicaid program in Florida. Housed within AHCA is the Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity (MPI). Among MPI's responsibilities is to conduct audits and investigations to ensure that the state's Medicaid providers are in compliance with programmatic requirements. At all times material to the instant cases, Respondent was enrolled in the Florida Medicaid program under two separate provider numbers (Provider No. 679849796, as a provider of Developmental Disabilities Home and Community-Based Medicaid Waiver services, and Provider No. 142150600, as a provider of assistive care services) and subject to the terms of Medicaid Provider Agreements,3/ which contained the following provisions, among others: (5) Provider Responsibilities: The Medicaid provider shall: * * * (b) Keep, maintain, and make available in a systematic and orderly manner all medical and Medicaid-related records as AHCA requires for a period of at least five (5) years. * * * (d) Send, at the provider's expense, legible copies of all Medicaid-related information to authorized state and federal employees, including their agents. The provider shall give state and federal employees access to all Medicaid patient records and to other information that cannot be separated from Medicaid-related records; and, in connection with Provider No. 679849796, it was also subject to the terms of a Medicaid Waiver Services Agreement with the Florida Agency for Persons with Disabilities (APD),4/ in which it had agreed, among other things, to do the following: To permit persons duly authorized by APD, the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), or representatives of either, to monitor, audit, inspect, and investigate any recipient records, payroll and expenditure records, (including electronic storage media), papers, documents, facilities, goods and services of the Provider, which are relevant to this Agreement . . . . * * * Upon demand, and at no additional cost to the APD, AHCA, or their authorized representatives, the Provider will facilitate the duplication and transfer of any records or documents (including electronic storage media), during the required retention period . . . . At all times material to DOAH Case No. 12-1664MPI Respondent, as an enrolled Medicaid provider of Developmental Disabilities Home and Community-Based Medicaid Waiver services, was bound by the following provisions of the Developmental Disabilities Waiver Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook dealing with employee training and recordkeeping requirements, which handbook provisions were incorporated by reference (along with the other provisions of the handbook) in Florida Administrative Code 59G-13.083: Companion Provider Requirements * * * Training Requirements Proof of training in the areas of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), HIV/AIDS and infection control is required within 30 days of initially providing companion services. Proof of annual or required updated training shall be maintained on file for review. The provider is responsible for all training requirements outlined in the Core Assurances. Note: Refer to the Core Assurances in Appendix A for the provider training requirements. . . . * * * Appendix A: Core Assurances for Providers of Developmental Disabilities Home and Community-Based Waiver Services Program * * * 2.1 Required Training The provider and its employees will ensure they receive the specific training required to successfully serve each recipient including the following topics: * * * H. All direct service providers hired after 90 days from the effective date of this rule are required to complete the Agency for Persons with Disabilities developed Zero Tolerance Training course prior to rendering direct care services (as a pre-service training activity). Said training may only be completed via APD's web-based instruction or classroom-led instruction (using APD's approved classroom curriculum presented either by APD staff or an individual who has been trained and approved by APD to conduct such classroom trainings). In addition, all direct service providers shall be required to complete the APD developed Zero Tolerance training course at least once every three years. The provider shall maintain on file for review, adequate and complete documentation to verify its participation, and the participation of its employees, in the required training sessions. The documentation for the above listed training shall, at a minimum, include the training topic(s), length of training session, date and location of training, name and signature of trainer, name and signature of person(s) in attendance. Proof of training shall be on file and available for monitoring and review. At all times material to DOAH Case No. 12-1841MPI, Respondent, as an enrolled Medicaid provider of assistive care services, was bound by the following provisions of the Assistive Care Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook dealing with health assessments, which handbook provisions were incorporated by reference (along with the other provisions of the handbook) in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-4.025: Recipients receiving Assistive Care Services must have a complete assessment at least annually by a physician or other licensed practitioner of the healing arts (Physician Assistant, Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner, Registered Nurse) or sooner if a significant change in the recipient's condition occurs (see below for a definition of a significant change). 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 or AFCH 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 a resident of a RTF must be completed by a physician or licensed mental health professional. The assessment must document the need for at least two of the four ACS components. The assessment for ALF residents must be recorded on the Resident Health Assessment for Assisted Living Facilities, AHCA Form 1823. At all times material to both DOAH Case No. 12-1664MPI and DOAH Case No. 12-1841MPI, Respondent was also bound by the following provisions of the Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook, which were incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-5.020 and applied to all enrolled Medicaid providers, including providers of Developmental Disabilities Home and Community-Based Medicaid Waiver services and providers of assistive care services: Record Keeping Requirement Medicaid requires that the provider retain all business records as defined in 59G- 1.010(30) F.A.C., medical-related records as defined in 59G-1.010(154) F.A.C., and medical records as defined in 59G-1.010(160) F.A.C. on all services provided to a Medicaid recipient.[5/] Records can be kept on paper, magnetic material, film, or other media including electronic storage, except as otherwise required by law or Medicaid requirements. In order to qualify as a basis for reimbursement, the records must be signed and dated at the time of service, or otherwise attested to as appropriate to the media. Rubber stamped signatures must be initialed. The records must be accessible, legible and comprehensible. * * * Record Retention Records must be retained for a period of at least five years from the date of service. * * * Right to Review Records Authorized state and federal agencies and their authorized representatives may audit or examine a provider's or facility's records. This examination includes all records that the agency finds necessary to determine whether Medicaid payment amounts were or are due. This requirement applies to the provider's records and records for which the provider is the custodian. The provider must give authorized state and federal agencies and their authorized representatives access to all Medicaid patient records and to other information that cannot be separated from Medicaid- related records. The provider must send, at his expense, legible copies of all Medicaid-related information to the authorized state and federal agencies and their authorized representatives upon request of AHCA. At the time of the request, all records must be provided regardless of the media format on which the original records are retained by the provider. All medical records must be reproduced onto paper copies. * * * Incomplete Records Providers who are not in compliance with the Medicaid documentation and record retention policies described in this chapter may be subject to administrative sanctions and recoupment of Medicaid payments. Medicaid payments for services that lack required documentation or appropriate signatures will be recouped. Note: See Chapter 5 in this handbook for information on administrative sanctions and Medicaid payment recoupment The foregoing contractual and handbook provisions supplemented section 409.913(9), Florida Statutes, which then provided (as it still does) as follows: A Medicaid provider shall retain medical, professional, financial, and business records pertaining to services and goods furnished to a Medicaid recipient and billed to Medicaid for a period of 5 years after the date of furnishing such services or goods. The agency may investigate, review, or analyze such records, which must be made available during normal business hours. However, 24-hour notice must be provided if patient treatment would be disrupted. The provider is responsible for furnishing to the agency, and keeping the agency informed of the location of, the provider's Medicaid- related records. The authority of the agency to obtain Medicaid-related records from a provider is neither curtailed nor limited during a period of litigation between the agency and the provider. On or about December 6, 2011, MPI investigators visited Respondent's facility to review Respondent's Medicaid-related records, but left before completing their review. Approximately a month later, MPI sent Respondent a letter, dated January 5, 2012, concerning claims that Respondent had filed under its Provider No. 679849796 as a provider of Developmental Disabilities Home and Community-Based Medicaid Waiver services (January 5 Letter). The letter read as follows: The Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), Office of Inspector General, Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity is in the process of completing a review of claims billed to Medicaid during the period June 01, 2011, through December 01, 2011, to determine whether the claims were billed and paid in accordance with Medicaid policy. Pursuant to Section 409.913, Florida Statutes (F.S.), this is official notice that the Agency requests the documentation for services paid by the Florida Medicaid provider to the above provider number [679849796]. The Medicaid-related records to substantiate billing for the [four] recipients identified on the enclosed printout are due within fifteen (15) calendar days of your receipt of this notification. Please submit the documentation and the attached Certification of Completeness of Records to the Agency within this timeframe, or other mutually agreed upon timeframe. Correspondence and requested records should be sent to the following address: Victor Rivera, Investigator Agency for Health Care Administration Medicaid Program Integrity 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S309 South Tower, Hurston Building Orlando, Florida 32801 In accordance with Section 409.913, F.S., and Rule 59G-9.070, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), the Agency shall apply sanctions for violations of federal and state laws, including Medicaid policy. Pursuant to the aforementioned provisions, failure to provide all Medicaid-related records in compliance with this request will result in the application of sanctions, which include, but are not limited to, fines, suspension and termination. The Medicaid-related records associated with this review should be retained until [the review is] completed. If you have any questions, please contact Victor Rivera, Investigator, at (407)420- 2524. The Certification of Completeness of Records form enclosed with the letter was to be completed by the provider's "official custodian of records," and it contained the following verification and certification: I hereby verify that I have searched the Medicaid-related records maintained by the Provider and have determined that the attached records consisting of (# of pages) are true and correct copies of the Medicaid- related records requested by the Agency for Health Care Administration, Office of the Inspector General, Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity. I further certify that these are all of the Medicaid-related records that were made at or near the time that the services were rendered by, or from information transmitted by, the Provider; are kept in the course of the regularly conducted business of the Provider; and that it is the regular practice of the Provider to keep such records. Also accompanying the letter was a printout providing information concerning "documentation organization." Among other things, it advised that the "employee documentation" that needed to be submitted included "[c]opies of all required AHCA training certificates," and it contained the further advisement that "[f]ailure to follow the aforementioned guidelines and/or failure to provide the [sic] ALL of the requested documentation for ALL staff members who provided services to Medicaid Recipients during the predetermined audit period w[ould] result in the [a]application of sanctions," including "fines." The January 5 Letter and accompanying documents were received by Respondent on January 9, 2012. Ten days later, MPI sent Respondent a second letter, dated January 19, 2012 (January 19 Letter). This letter concerned claims that Respondent had filed under its Provider No. 142150600 as a provider of assistive care services, and it provided as follows: The Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), Office of Inspector General, Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity is in the process of completing a review of claims billed to Medicaid during the period January 1, 2011, through November 30, 2011, to determine whether the claims were billed and paid in accordance with Medicaid policy. Pursuant to Section 409.913, Florida Statutes (F.S.), this is official notice that the Agency requests the documentation for services paid by the Florida Medicaid provider to the above provider number [143150600]. The Medicaid-related records to substantiate billing for the [four] recipients identified on the enclosed printout are due within fifteen (15) calendar days of your receipt of this notification. Please submit copies of the Medicaid-related records and the attached Certification of Completeness of Records to the Agency within this timeframe, or other mutually agreed upon timeframe. Correspondence and requested records should be sent to the following address: Victor Rivera, Investigator Agency for Health Care Administration Medicaid Program Integrity 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 309 South Tower, Hurston Building Orlando, Florida 32801 In accordance with Section 409.913, F.S., and Rule 59G-9.070, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), the Agency shall apply sanctions for violations of federal and state laws, including Medicaid policy. Pursuant to the aforementioned provisions, failure to provide all Medicaid-related records in compliance with this request will result in the application of sanctions, which include, but are not limited to, fines, suspension and termination. The Medicaid-related records associated with this review should be retained until [the review is] completed. If you have any questions, please contact Victor Rivera, Investigator, at (407)420- 2524. At the bottom of the "enclosed printout" referenced in the letter was the following cautionary advisement: Please refer to your Assistive Care Services handbook, July 2009, for information on the required documentation for recipient files. The Certification of Completeness of Records form enclosed with the letter was identical to the Certification of Completeness of Records form that had accompanied the January 5 Letter. The January 19 Letter and accompanying documents were received by Respondent on January 21, 2012. Respondent, through its owner/administrator Angel Cox, responded to the records requests made in the January 5 and January 19 Letters by providing MPI with copies of numerous documents, along with two completed, signed, and dated Certifications of Completeness of Records (one for each records request), on January 24, 2012.6/ Ms. Cox supplemented this response by faxing additional copies to MPI on February 7, 2012. Victor Rivera, the MPI investigator to whom Respondent had been directed to send its responses to MPI's January 5, 2012, and January 19, 2012, records requests, reviewed the documentation that Ms. Cox had submitted and determined that the following Medicaid-related records that Respondent had been requested to produce in the January 5 and January 19 Letters were missing (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Further Required Documentation"): written proof that D. S., an employee of Respondent's who had helped deliver services for which Respondent had billed the Florida Medicaid program from June 1, 2011, through December 1, 2011, under its Developmental Disabilities Home and Community-Based Medicaid Waiver services provider number, had completed the infection control and zero tolerance training required by the Developmental Disabilities Waiver Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook; and the annual health assessments required by the Assistive Care Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook for the four recipients of the services for which Respondent had billed the Florida Medicaid program from January 1, 2011, through November 30, 2011, under its assistive care services provider number. At all times material to the instant cases, Respondent had the Further Required Documentation in its possession,7/ however, Ms. Cox had inadvertently failed to include these documents in the submissions she made (on behalf of Respondent) in response to MPI's January 5 and January 19 Letters. Ms. Cox first learned that the Further Required Documentation was missing during a telephone conversation she had with Mr. Rivera at the end of March 2012, when he advised her of the omission and told her that she needed to get these documents to him "as soon as possible."8/ On April 1 or 2, 2012, no more than three or four days after this telephone conversation, Ms. Cox provided Mr. Rivera, by fax, with copies of the following: a certificate of completion issued by APD to employee D. S. on April 28, 2010, for "Zero Tolerance Training"; a certificate of completion issued by All Metro Health Care to employee D. S. for "Infection Control Guidelines" training completed on February 12, 2011; and a completed March 2011 annual health assessment recorded on AHCA Form 1823 (2011 Health Assessment Form) for each of the four recipients identified in the printout accompanying the January 19 Letter. Respondent also had in its possession the previous year's completed AHCA Form 1823 (2010 Health Assessment Form) for each of these recipients, but Ms. Cox did not fax copies of these forms9/ to Mr. Rivera because she reasonably believed that Mr. Rivera had asked only for the 2011 Health Assessment Forms.10/ MPI tries to "work with the [Medicaid] providers." If a provider is asked by MPI to provide, "as soon as possible," a specified document or documents previously requested but not produced and the provider, in response to such a follow-up request, produces the document(s) in question within a matter of days, it is MPI's practice to not impose any sanctions on the provider and, instead, to "move on to the next case."11/ In the instant cases, however, in an unexplained departure from that practice, MPI chose to issue the April 9, 2012, sanction letters set out above. It is these sanction letters that frame the issues to be resolved in these cases.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration dismiss the allegations made against Respondent in the April 9, 2012, sanction letters issued in these cases and it not impose any sanctions against Respondent for the conduct alleged in these letters. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 21st day of February, 2013.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent Agency must be reimbursed by the Petition for purported overpayments regarding Medicaid claims, as delineated in the Respondent's Final Agency Audit Report of December 12, 2003, related to the audit period of July 1, 2000 through July 31, 2002.
Findings Of Fact The Agency is responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid program. The Agency is thus charged with a duty to recover overpayments to medical service providers enrolled in that program. The term "overpayment" means any amount not authorized to be paid by the Medicaid program, whether paid as a result of inaccurate reporting or improper reporting of costs, improper claims, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse, or by mistake. See § 409.913.(1).(d), Fla. Stat. The Petitioner, Maria Lourdes Burgos, M.D., is a pediatrician duly licensed in the State of Florida, practicing as an authorized Medicaid provider for purposes of the relevant portions of Chapter 409, Florida Statutes, at times pertinent hereto. During the period July 1, 2000 through July 31, 2002, (the audit period) the Petitioner had a valid Medicaid provider agreement with the Respondent Agency. During the period of the audit the Petitioner provided services to Medicaid recipients or patients and submitted claims for those services and was compensated for those services. This case is a result of the Agency's attempt to recover purported overpayments from Dr. Burgos. In choosing to become a Medicaid provider, a physician such as Dr. Burgos must assume the responsibilities enumerated in Section 409.913(7), Florida Statutes (2004), which provided generally that such a provider had an affirmative duty to supervise the provision of such services and be responsible for the preparation and submission of claims. The claims are required to be true and accurate, the services are required to actually have been furnished to the recipient by the provider submitting the claim; the services are required to be medically necessary, of a comparable quality to those furnished to the general public by the provider's peers; and to have been provided in accordance with all applicable provisions of Medicaid rules, regulations, handbooks, and policies. They must be in accordance with federal, state, and local law. Additionally, the provision of medical services are required to be documented by records made contemporaneously with the provision of the services, demonstrating the medical necessity for them and the medical basis and specific need for them must be properly documented in the recipient's medical record. The "audit period" involved in this proceeding is July 1, 2000 through July 31, 2002. The Medicaid program reimbursed Dr. Burgos in excess of $43,238.57 in payments pursuant to the Medicaid program during that audit period. The Final Agency Audit Report is in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit One and the calculations pertaining to the overpayment amount are included in that report as part of Respondent's Exhibit One in evidence. The Agency contends that $43,238.57 is an overpayment and subject to recoupment because of Medicaid policy, as alleged in the Final Agency Audit Report (FAAR). Medical records reveal that some services billed, and for which payment was received, were not documented and that documentation provided supported a lower level of office visits than the one for which the Medicaid program was billed and for which payment was received by the Petitioner; and, because payments can be made only for those services listed in the provider handbook, that the Petitioner billed and received payments for services not covered by Medicaid as overpayments. The Agency furnishes all authorized Medicaid providers a manual entitled The Physician Coverage and Limitations Handbook (Handbook). The Handbook contains the requirements demanded of Medicaid providers and it and the procedure code manual (CPT) manual that was in effect during the audit period is in evidence in this proceeding. The handbook has been incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-4.230. This handbook sets forth Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-4.230 and sets forth pertinent applicable Medicaid policies and claims processing requirements applicable to this proceeding. Upon convening of the audit procedure, the Agency requested certain records from the Petitioner and the Petitioner fully complied with the relevant requirements of Chapter 409, Florida Statutes, submitting copies of all records dealing with the recipients who where the subject of the audit. See Exhibit Eight in evidence. The Petitioner, in effect, does not dispute the statistical methodology employed by the agency, but does dispute the manner in which it was applied to certain procedure codes (CPT codes) and the result of the overpayment calculations. Additionally, for every office visit that the Petitioner had with Medicaid patients, she personally made an individual judgment about the level of service that she provided and accordingly billed for that level of care and treatment provided. She was consistent in this in her billing practices as to both Medicaid and non-Medicaid patients. In some instances, regarding the audited Medicaid patient/recipient records, it was demonstrated by the Petitioner that the patient presented with somewhat more complexity as to medical condition that the CPT code, postulated by the Agency as applicable, represented that thus she billed for the higher code (as for instance a "99215" instead of a "99213) or "99214"). Some of these medical judgment calls made by the Petitioner were shown to be appropriate and justified and some where shown by the Respondent's evidence, chiefly the testimony of Dr. Larry Deeb, the Respondent's expert, to be not really appropriate and that they should have been coded and therefore billed at a lower level. In any event, based upon the testimony of Dr. Larry Deeb, as well as the Petitioner's testimony, the submission of both a "well child" checkup billing and a "sick office visit" billing was appropriate and consistent with good medical practice under the circumstances demonstrated by the Petitioner's testimony and her records. Thus it was inappropriate for the Agency to automatically claim an overpayment due for those billings, based upon only its policy interpretation. Additionally, based upon Ms. Mocks testimony, it is apparently an Agency policy or practice in conducting audits, and in recouping overpayments, that when errors are discovered in the audit or in the billing records which happen to be in favor of the practitioner (the Petitioner) that the Agency does not provide a credit applied to any alleged overpayment. It would seem that fundamental fairness dictates that both credits and overpayments be weighed against each other in calculating the ultimate amount of any overpayment, if one exists. In any event, based upon Dr. Deeb's testimony and the Petitioner's testimony, with regard to the random sample of patients and their medical records submitted, reviewed and involved in this dispute, the evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner was not overpaid as to the following amounts and patients/recipients: Recipient Date of CPT Disallowed/ Number Service Billed and Paid Adjusted Amount 1 12/05/00 99215 $37.59 09/05/01 99215 $60.95 2 03/05/01 99214 $15.11 3 09/19/00 99215 $13.01 4 04/04/01 99215 $60.95 5 09/15/00 99214 $15.11 05/10/01 W9881 $22.70 6 01/14/02 99215 $14.52 8 11/08/01 99214 $15.11 9 05/03/01 99205 $87.24 10 05/03/01 99205 $87.241/ 11 04/04/02 90669 $ 0.002/ 04/04/01 W9881 $37.81 04/04/01 99214 $46.42 12 10/18/01 99214 $15.11 01/18/02 99215 $29.63 01/30/02 99215 $14.52 05/20/02 99214 $15.11 13 08/14/00 99215 $13.01 14 01/31/01 99214 $15.11 08/27/01 99214 $15.11 05/13/02 99214 $24.58 15 10/17/00 99356 $50.94 Recipient Date of CPT Disallowed/ Number Service Billed and Paid Adjusted Amount 10/19/00 99233 $12.53 16 10/13/00 99215 $57.14 17 05/10/01 99215 $60.95 12/11/01 W9881 $37.81 12/11/01 99214 $46.42 20 12/22/00 99205 $17.02 22 11/19/01 99223 $42.04 11/20/00 99239 $11.53 23 03/27/02 W1998 $ 0.003/ 04/03/02 99356 $49.72 04/22/02 99215 $ 0.004/ 04/29/02 99214 $13.86 05/10/02 99215 $ 0.005/ 24 08/12/01 99356 $ 0.006/ 08/15/01 99239 $12.06 25 09/30/01 99223 $22.71 10/01/01 99233 $12.66 26 12/03/01 99356 $49.257/ 12/06/01 99239 $12.06 12/14/01 99205 $18.12 01/16/02 99215 $29.63 01/23/02 99215 $29.638/ 28 10/13/01 99431 $ 0.009/ Recipient Number Date of Service CPT Disallowed/ Billed and Paid Adjusted Amount 10/14/02 99233 $12.66 10/15/01 99239 $12.06 29 02/28/02 99356 $ 5.4210/ 03/01/02 99233 $13.80 03/02/02 99239 $13.66 03/06/02 99205 $18.67 29 03/13/02 99215 $14.52 11. The Petitioner in its Proposed Recommended Order has agreed that other than the above (Proposed Recommended Order paragraph 10 patients and amounts) that the Petitioner agrees with the Agency's review and the overpayment calculations on a per office visit basis. Additionally, however, as referenced above, there were additional health insurance claim forms which were, or should have been, submitted to the Agency, representing claims for payment for dates of service that clearly fall within the relevant audit period, that were never compensated by the Agency's contracted agent. The alternative is that the claim forms for some reason were not actually submitted. Unfortunately, neither the Petitioner's records and testimony nor the Agency records can clearly show whether the claim forms were actually submitted or not. It is apparently not possible to retrieve that information from the Agency's claim filling and payment-related computer programming system, for reasons not understood by either party or the judge. There is thus no clear explanation of record concerning why these claims were not paid earlier, even though they fall within the audited period. It is clear, however, that the additional claims referenced in the Petitioner's Exhibit Seven, admitted as a late exhibit herein, do relate to that audit period and represent medical services provided by the Petitioner within that audit period. Since that audit period and the claims referenced in evidence are the subject of a "proceeding" and are pending a "court or hearing decision . . ." or, alternatively and admittedly somewhat speculatively, could be subject of a "system error on claim that was originally filed within (12) months from date of service," it appears patently apparent that fundamental fairness dictates that these health insurance claim forms related to the same audit period should be considered and a determination made as to whether and how much of those claims should be reimbursed to the Petitioner for the medical services they represent. Thus, especially as to exception (2) to the twelve- month filing requirement listed in the above-reference handbook, Exhibit Seven has been admitted into evidence and the claim forms represented therein should be considered and the amounts payable to the Petitioner should be credited against the resultant overpayment amounts calculated as a result of these Findings of Fact.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, re-calculate the amount of overpayment in a manner consistent with the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, excluding from the amount of overpayment those amounts determined above to have not constituted overpayments. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Respondent calculate the amount of reimbursement not provided pursuant to the recently submitted or re-submitted (but never paid) Exhibit Seven health insurance claim forms, and as for the reasons indicted in the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and credit that additional amount of reimbursement against the overpayment calculation amount in arriving at the new overpayment due from the Petitioner to the Respondent. The Petitioner shall repay the Respondent the re-calculated monetary amount of overpayment within a reasonable period of time and by reasonable installment payments, agreed to by both parties, but shall not be obligated to pay other costs or fees related to this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of November, 2005.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is liable to Respondent for Medicaid overpayments, fines, interests, and costs, pursuant to the Agency’s Final Agency Audit Letter of May 2, 2001 (hereinafter FAAL), in the amount of $194,526.97.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Petitioner, Lifeline Pharmacy, is a retail pharmacy formed in early 2000. Martin Calano is the owner and president of Lifeline. It is co-owned by his wife, Barbara Calano, who serves as the treasurer; Frank Hernandez, who oversees the pharmacy operations; and Imada Hernandez. None of the pharmacy's owners has an educational background in pharmacy or Medicaid regulations. Dr. William Bebell is the sole pharmacist employed by Lifeline Pharmacy. He is responsible for managing the prescriptions and has been involved with the practice of pharmacy for 25 years. Respondent Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), is the state agency charged with administration of the Medicaid program in Florida under Section 409.907, Florida Statutes. As one of its duties, Respondent must recover overpayments paid to providers by the Medicaid program. The term "overpayment" is statutorily defined to mean "any amount that is not authorized to be paid by the Medicaid program whether paid as a result of inaccurate or improper cost reporting, improper claiming, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse, or mistake." See Section 409.913(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Petitioner participated in the Medicaid program, under contract with Respondent, from December 17, 1999 through April 21, 2000, and was issued provider number 021780800. In 1999, Respondent hired Heritage Information Systems ("Heritage") to perform audits of various Medicaid providers. Louis Elie, an auditor employed with Heritage since 1999, is responsible for auditing retail home infusion pharmacies. He is a pharmacist with a degree from Howard University, registered in the State of Virginia, and has practiced for over ten years. He has worked in a retail pharmacy for five years coordinating home infusion therapies, and has worked at Medical College of Virginia, a teaching institution that has a community pharmacy embedded in a home infusion pharmacy that services the community. William Thomas is an investigator for Heritage and serves as the project manager for the Florida Medicaid audits. He has a B.A. in economics, a B.S. in pharmacy, and is a licensed pharmacist in Florida. Kelly Rubin is employed by AHCA within the Medicaid Program Integrity (MPI) office as a pharmacy investigator. The MPI office audits health care providers who participate in the Medicaid program and reviews the provider's compliance with applicable statutes, rules, and policies regarding billing Medicaid for services rendered. Ms. Rubin has been a licensed Florida pharmacist for approximately nine years, and was a pharmacy tech for approximately eight years. She has experience in hospital and retail pharmacy, and has served as the director of a home infusion pharmacy. As an investigator employed by Respondent, Ms. Rubin reviewed Petitioner's pharmacy records as well as the audit performed by Heritage. Upon review of the records and the Heritage audit, Ms. Rubin and the MPI office calculated the amount of Petitioner's overpayment and issued the FAAL with supporting documentation. The Audit During the four-month time period reviewed in the audit, Petitioner submitted 744 prescription claims to Medicaid totaling $445,713.19 and received payment for each of them. Respondent, acting as the state's enforcement arm of the Medicaid program, chose to audit 329 of Petitioner's 744 claims. Specifically, Respondent selected 128 of the 744 claims to be audited through a judgmental sample analysis and 201 claims from the remaining 616 claims to be audited through a random sample analysis. On May 15, 2000, Respondent, and its contract auditor Heritage, arrived unannounced at Petitioner's place of business to conduct the in-depth audit. The audit team was met by Petitioner's sole pharmacist, Dr. Bebell, who was responsible for managing the prescription records. Upon their arrival, Dr. Bebell was provided a list of 329 provider claim prescription numbers selected by Respondent for review. Although the audit team did not specify the precise records it needed, the auditors instructed Dr. Bebell to provide "all" records pertaining to the selected prescriptions, purportedly filled by the pharmacy during the December 17, 1999 through April 21, 2000, audit period. In response, Dr. Bebell provided the auditors with the prescription records, invoice records, and financial records of the specific prescriptions requested. It is apparent, however, that at some point during the first day of the audit, Petitioner retrieved some records back from the audit team prior to review. During the audit, the team reviewed each record provided by Dr. Bebell and occasionally requested Dr. Bebell to produce additional prescription records for a given claim. Any additional records provided by the pharmacist were considered by the auditors. Although the communication between the parties appeared to be strained, the auditors remained at Petitioner's place of business for four days and interacted with Dr. Bebell on a regular basis. At the conclusion of the audit on the fourth day, the auditors departed the pharmacy. A formal exit conference, involving Petitioner's counsel, was not held. Audit findings Judgmental sample As indicated, the auditors selected 128 of the 744 claims for review through a judgmental sample analysis. Using this technique, the auditors reviewed each claim and identified discrepancies with the rules, laws, and policies governing both the Medicaid Program and the practice of pharmacy, and assessed a monetary sanction for each discrepancy. In the judgmental sample, the auditors cited 81 alleged discrepancies that were predominately attributed to unauthorized refills ("UR"), original hard-copy prescriptions that could not be found ("CF"), and oral prescriptions that were not properly documented ("MISC"). The monetary sanctions totaled $172,410.84. Random sample The audit team also utilized a mutually exclusive random sample to review claims. The random sample consisted of 201 claims selected at random from the remaining population of 616 Medicaid provider claims. In the random sample, the auditors again looked at each claim and identified discrepancies with the rules, laws, and policies governing both the Medicaid Program and the practice of pharmacy. However, in this review, the auditors also calculated a claim discrepancy average and multiplied it by the remaining population of 616 claims. During the random sample review, Respondent discovered 58 discrepancies that averaged $51.546661 per claim. Thereafter, the random sample average was extended to the remaining population of claims in the judgmental sample and totaled $31,752.71. For added confidence in the extrapolated findings and to mitigate any "over penalizing," Respondent calculated the 95 percent one-sided lower confidence limit of the extrapolated random sample and reduced the applied discrepancy amount to $22,116.13. The random sample and judgmental sample discrepancy amount were aggregated and a monetary sanction in the amount of $194,526.97 was assessed against Petitioner for the overpayment. Respondent's case At the administrative hearing, during Respondent's case-in-chief, counsel for Respondent introduced an exhaustive list of 35 exhibits relating to the audit, presented the testimony of Mr. Thomas, Mr. Elie, and Ms. Rubin, and explained each discrepancy documented during the audit. Respondent presented evidence identifying the 152 discrepancies identified in the audit report. Specifically, the auditors cited: 23 "CF" discrepancies where the original hard-copy prescription could not be found on file during the audit; 50 "UR" discrepancies where the number of refills billed and paid to the pharmacy exceeded the number authorized by the prescribing physician; 4 "OBQ" discrepancies where the quantity paid exceeded the quantity authorized by the prescribing physician; 1 "EQL" discrepancy where the quantity paid exceeds the limit set by the Medicaid Plan; 6 "DS" discrepancies where the day's supply value submitted by the pharmacy was not consistent with the quantity and directions prescribed; 1 "WDB" discrepancy where the pharmacy submitted a claim for medication that was different from the medication dispensed; 1 "NDEA" discrepancy where the hard-copy prescription did not contain a DEA number as required; and 64 "MISC" discrepancies where the telephone prescription orders were not reduced to writing. Petitioner's Case Following Respondent's case-in-chief, counsel for Petitioner introduced seven exhibits; presented the testimony of four witnesses including Mr. and Mrs. Calano, Mr. Hernandez and Dr. Bebell; and strenuously attacked the actions, motivations and findings of Respondent. Specifically, Petitioner alleged that the 23 documented "CF" discrepancies, relating to missing prescriptions, actually existed and were available at the time of the audit. Petitioner argued that the missing prescriptions were subsequently "found," introduced into evidence at hearing, available to Respondent, and entitled them to relief. Petitioner's assertions and the newly found prescriptions are highly suspect and summarily rejected. Respondent proved the 23 "CF" discrepancies by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner also argued that the 50 "UR" discrepancies, representing unauthorized refills, identified in the audit report, were in fact authorized. Specifically, Petitioner claimed that the abbreviation "IV," written in Rx numbers 50619, 50622, 50623, 50631, 50638, and 50641, and cited for 20 discrepancies, stood for "4" refills and not the term "intravenous." Dr. Bebell testified under oath that he utilized the abbreviation in each of the 20 discrepancies to reflect the numeral "4" and not the term "intravenous." Petitioner's assertion regarding these 20 cited "UR" discrepancies are not accepted for several reasons. First, Respondent demonstrated that the excessive number of refills would have been inappropriate therapy. Second, Petitioner's position does not comport with standard pharmacy practice. Third, Petitioner's assertion and Dr. Bebell's testimony are directly inconsistent with Dr. Bebell's routine use of standard numerals within his written prescriptions. In fact, there appear to be no Roman numerals within any of his prescriptions. And finally, accepting the argument that "IV" actually meant "4" creates unreasonable inconsistencies and ambiguities within Dr. Bebell's written prescriptions. For these reasons, Petitioner's assertion is without credit. Respondent proved the 20 cited "UR" discrepancies by a preponderance of the evidence. With respect to the 30 remaining "UR" discrepancies relating to Rx numbers 50624, 50631, 50632, 50633, 50634, 50635, 50723, 50280, and 50330, Petitioner demonstrated that the prescriptions were valid, often included both the prescribing doctor and pharmacist's signature, occasionally were not billed for refill, and in fact were authorized. Respondent failed to prove the 30 above-cited "UR" discrepancies by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner also contested three of the four "OBQ" discrepancies relating to the quantity paid exceeding the quantity authorized, and specifically conceded to Rx number 50505. Petitioner presented credible evidence that Petitioner properly received Medicaid payment for the precise medicine prescribed by Dr. Contreras in Rx numbers 50331 and 50463, as well as the precise medication (30 tablets plus one refill) prescribed by Dr. Folkerth in Rx number 50548. Respondent proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, the single "OBQ" discrepancy conceded by Petitioner in Rx 50505. Petitioner argued that Rx number 50678, cited as a discrepancy due to the quantity paid exceeded the Medicaid Plan, was proper. Respondent proved the single "EQL" discrepancy by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner contested the six "DS" discrepancies identified in the audit report relating to Rx numbers 50505, 50331, 50451, 50463, 50548, and 50678, and argued that the day's supply value submitted by the pharmacy was consistent with the quantity and directions provided by the physician. Respondent failed to prove the discrepancies related to Rx numbers 50331, 50463, and 50548, and applied no penalty to Rx number 50451. Respondent proved the two "DS" discrepancies relating to Rx numbers 50505 and 50678 by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, the single "WDB" discrepancy relating to Rx number 50308. Respondent proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, the single "NDEA" discrepancy relating to Rx number 50740. And finally, counsel for Petitioner strongly contested the 64 "MISC" discrepancies identified in the audit report that allege Dr. Bebell failed to properly reduce telephone prescriptions to writing. Petitioner suggested that, at best, the "MISC" discrepancies were "technical" and should not be assessed. While the evidence proves that Petitioner often received its prescriptions via physician telephone orders, it is clear that these records were not received, recorded, managed and maintained in the method provided by law. In fact, at the time of the audit, Petitioner indicated that they were in the initial stages of setting up the pharmacy and had problems with paperwork. Dr. Bebell admitted that he was unfamiliar with the computer system, kept prescription records in patient charts rather than in the computer, and did not understand many of the regulations governing prescription records including telephone orders. He testified that "according to regulation either myself or one of my staff members reduce the verbal order . . . to writing immediately," notwithstanding the fact that Dr. Bebell is the only registered pharmacist on staff and the only individual legally permitted to accept and sign the prescription. While Petitioner further argues that the telephone orders relating to the 64 "MISC" discrepancies were properly reduced to writing and later signed by the pharmacist shortly after taking the order, the evidence demonstrates otherwise. Scanned images of Petitioner's prescription records, taken at the time of the audit, clearly demonstrate that telephone prescription orders were improperly received, signed and recorded. Furthermore, Dr. Bebell admitted that he occasionally did not sign each telephone order prescription as required by law. Petitioner further asserts that the scanned images were only draft documents and the newly provided, signed prescription documents are the actual prescriptions. Petitioner's new evidence relating to the 64 "MISC" discrepancies is suspect and not accepted. The 64 "MISC" discrepancies identified verbal orders allegedly taken by a registered pharmacist and not signed by that pharmacist. Standard pharmacy practice, as well as state and federal law, require pharmacists to reduce telephone prescription orders to writing immediately upon receipt. Respondent proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the 64 "MISC" discrepancies including Rx numbers 563, 565, 602, 639, 723, 821, 829, 131, 133, 271, 275, 276, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 286, 287, 296, 306, 311, 330, 341, 344, 365, 389, 390, 411, 412, 475, 477, 478, 479, 529, 537, 538, 539, 552, 556, 557, 558, 564, 676, 704, 705, 706, 708, 709, 713, 714, 716, 740, 779, and 885. A total recovery for each of those claims to Medicaid is appropriate.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that: Respondent shall recalculate the monetary sanctions, excluding the 30 "UR," three "OBQ," and four "DS" discrepancies identified in the Findings of Fact, utilizing the same statistical formula. Petitioner shall repay Respondent the recalculated monetary sanction, plus interest derived from April 6, 2001 through December 1, 2002, at the statutory rate, within a reasonable period of time agreed to by both parties. Petitioner shall not be obligated to pay any other costs or fees related to this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Kelly A. Bennett, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Craig A. Brand, Esquire Brand & Fernandez, P.A. 2 Northeast 40th Street Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33137 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
