The Issue This case involves a dispute as to whether the Petitioner underpaid the premiums due on his health insurance coverage and, if so, what action should be taken by the Department of Administration as a result of any premium underpayments. By notice dated March 18, 1988, the Department of Administration notified the Petitioner that the Department records "show a total underpayment of $1,117.81 for the coverage periods 9/86 through 9/87." At the formal hearing, over the objection of the Petitioner, the Department was permitted to offer evidence regarding the Petitioner's premium history (both the amounts due and the amounts actually paid) for the entire period of the Petitioner's employment with the State of Florida, a period which runs from May 1978 until October 1988. At the formal hearing the Department of Administration presented the testimony of one witness and offered several exhibits, all of which were received. The Petitioner did not present any evidence, but did present oral argument on his own behalf. The parties were allowed 10 days from November 3, 1988, within which to file their post-hearing submissions with the Hearing Officer. The Department of Administration timely filed Proposed Findings Of Fact. Those findings are specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended order. The Petitioner did not file any post-hearing submission.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the formal hearing, I make the following findings of fact. From May 1, 1978, until August 1, 1978, the Petitioner requested and received family coverage under the State Group Health Self-insurance Plan. From November 1, 1978, until November 1, 1985, the Petitioner requested and received individual coverage under the State Group Health Self-Insurance Plan. From November 1, 1985, until the date of the hearing, the Petitioner requested and received family coverage under the State Group Health Self-Insurance Plan. From May 1, 198, until July 1, 1984, the Petitioner was a part-time employee of the State of Florida, working .25 of a full-time equivalent position. Accordingly, his premiums for health insurance coverage under the State Group Health Self-Insurance Plan during this period should have been paid on the basis of employment in a .25 full-time equivalent position. From July 1, 1984, until at least the date of the hearing, the Petitioner has been a part-time employee of the State of Florida, working .20 of a full-time equivalent position. Accordingly, his premiums for health insurance coverage under the State Group Self-Insurance Plan during this period should have been paid on the basis of employment in a .20 full-time equivalent position. During the period beginning May 1, 1988, and continuing through October of 1988, the amount by which the Petitioner underpaid his health insurance coverage premiums totals S1,116.36. 1/ During the period beginning March 1, 1986, and continuing through October of 1988, the amount by which the Petitioner underpaid his health insurance coverage premiums totals $861.74. During the thirteen-month period beginning with September 1986 and ending with (but including) September 1987, the amount by which the Petitioner underpaid his health insurance coverage premiums totals $258.36.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, I recommend the entry of a Final Order to the following effect: Finding the Petitioner to be in debt to the State of Florida in the amount of $258.36 by reason of underpayment of premiums during the period of September 1986 through September 1987. Providing that the Petitioner's health insurance coverage under the State Group Health Self-Insurance Plan will be cancelled unless within thirty (30) days following the entry of the final order the Petitioner either pays the full amount of $258.36 or enters into an installment payment program consistent with Rule 22K-1.049(1)(a)2., Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 1988.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Marcus Paul, was employed part-time as a dentist by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Pensacola, Florida. As part of his employment Dr. Paul was enrolled in the State's Employee Health Insurance Plan. The State's Health Plan is a self-insurance plan. Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) of Florida is the State's agent for administering the Health Plan and is initially responsible for timely and promptly investigating and paying legitimate health claims. Under the State's Health Plan an employee is responsible for the first $1,000 of covered expenses. The Plan pays the balance of any covered expenses incurred by the employee. Covered expenses are defined in the plan. Such expenses are basically limited to reasonably necessary medical treatment or care of some kind. Dr. Paul also carried a direct pay health insurance policy with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania policy was a non-coordinating policy with the State's Health Plan. In essence, the Pennsylvania policy paid directly to its insured, Dr. Paul, regardless of the benefits paid by the State's Plan and the State's Plan benefits are not reduced by the Pennsylvania policy's payment of health benefits. Around September 15, 1984, Dr. Paul suffered a pulmonary embolism. He was hospitalized for his condition from September 15, 1984 to September 30, 1984. On admission, the hospital obtained Dr. Paul's health insurance information and had him sign the usual authorizations to allow the hospital to file his insurance claim. The total hospital charge resulting from Petitioner's hospitalization was $10,873.01 of which $10,582.30 was eligible for payment under the State Plan. The hospital filed a claim on both of Dr. Paul's contracts of insurance. Both contracts of insurance paid benefits to the hospital. BCBS of Pennsylvania paid approximately $9,500 and BCBS of Florida paid $9,582.00. The amount paid by BCBS of Florida represents the total covered expenses less the $1,000 the insured is responsible for. Because of the double payment the hospital told Dr. Paul that he was entitled to a refund from it. However, before the hospital refunded the money to Dr. Paul, BCBS of Florida discovered the double payment. No evidence was presented as to how BCBS of Florida discovered the other insurance company's co-payment. BCBS of Florida immediately demanded the hospital refund its payment. The hospital did so. BCBS of Florida mistakenly took the position that it was not the primary payor on the claim and refused to pay the claim. The hospital thereafter looked to the Pennsylvania proceeds for its payment. Dr. Paul was thereby prevented from receiving the monies due him under his Pennsylvania policy at a time when his need for funds was high since, due to his illness, he could not conduct a regular practice. For approximately one year Dr. Paul attempted to correct BCBS of Florida's mistake. However, he ran into a brick wall. Finally, after Dr. Paul retained an attorney to deal with BCBS, BCBS admitted its mistake and paid the hospital as the primary payor of Dr. Paul's claim. BCBS' failure to pay Dr. Paul's claim for over one year was a breach of his contract of insurance and negligent. BCBS' actions caused Dr. Paul not to be able to receive other monies that were rightfully his and at a minimum caused Dr. Paul to incur damages in the amount of attorney's fee he was forced to pay to rectify BCBS' mistake. When BCBS paid the claim the second time the company paid $10,281.93 to the hospital. Dr. Paul's $1,000 deductible was not subtracted from the amount BCBS paid. The hospital then refunded $10,105.70 to Dr. Paul. The discrepancy between the original `84 payment and the second `85 payment is $300.17. Therefore, only $699.83 could be attributable to Dr. Paul. Additionally Dr. Paul did not receive the full BCBS payment from the hospital. The amount he received was $176.23 less than the amount paid by BCBS. Therefore, the amount owed by Dr. Paul, if any, is $523.60. The hospital has possession of the other $176.23. BCBS later discovered its error and attempted to collect the full $1,000 deductible from Dr. Paul. He refused to pay since he had incurred and paid more than $3,000 in attorney's fees when he was forced to hire an attorney to obtain proper payment of his insurance claim. Since Dr. Paul refused to pay, BCBS turned his name over to DOA, its principal, for further collection action. DOA terminated further payment of Dr. Paul's ongoing insurance claims. 1/ Additionally, DOA unsuccessfully attempted to have the comptroller garnish Dr. Paul's wages. These actions were taken even in light of the breach of contract and negligent failure of DOA's agent to properly pay Dr. Paul's claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended: That the Department enter a final order determining that Dr. Paul is liable to it for the $523.60. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 1989.
The Issue The issues concern the question of Petitioner's responsibility to pay additional insurance premiums related to Family I coverage in the State Employees' Group Health Insurance program for the period February 1981 through April 1982, based upon alleged underpayments of required premiums. See Section 110.123, Florida Statutes and Rule 22K-1.20, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact According to the Florida law which has application in this dispute, when a husband and wife were employed by separate agencies of the State of Florida, cost of the Family I coverage under the State Group Health Insurance Plan was defrayed by those state agencies. This is as contrasted with the circumstance in which one spouse would be responsible for contributing to the cost of the Family I coverage under the State Group Health Insurance Plan, should the second spouse cease to be employed by the second state agency. The State of Florida, Department of Administration, has she responsibility for administering the State Group Health Insurance Plan, to include collection of necessary premium payments. Both Petitioner and his wife had been reported in the records of the Department of Administration as employed by the Department of Corrections and Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services respectively, as employees entitled to participate in the spouse program for payment of health care, i.e., the program in which no contribution is made by the employees toward payment of health insurance premiums. On October 28, 1982, the Petitioner informed the Department of Administration on a form provided by the Bureau of Insurance of the Department of Administration that his wife, Caroline Wilson, had terminated her employment with Health and Rehabilitative Services effective March 23, 1982. This form was executed in cooperation with the Petitioner's employing agency. The second part of the form related to information to be provided by the wife and her employing agency on the question of her employment was not completed by the spouse nor signed off by her employing agency. A copy of this item or form may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence. As a result of information he provided, Petitioner was informed of an underpayment of premiums for the period May 1982 through November 1982, related to his wife's lack of eligibility for contribution from her employing agency and the responsibility of the Petitioner to substitute as payor of those premiums. This referred to the point of departure identified by the Petitioner allowing for a grace month of April 1982, thereby making the period of underpayment May 1982 through November 1982. The amount of nonpayment was $280.06, which was eventually reimbursed by the Petitioner. Subsequently, in January 1984, Respondent, Bureau of Insurance, in an attempt to ascertain why Health and Rehabilitative Services had not contributed the full amount of its share to the insurance related to Caroline P. Wilson in times before March 23, 1982, discovered that the wife, Caroline P. Wilson, had terminated her employment some time before March 23, 1982. As was revealed in the final hearing, the last day of employment with Health and Rehabilitative Services was January 3, 1981. After that date, Mrs. Wilson did not return to her job at the Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida, and was eventually considered to have abandoned that job. (It was the first impression of the Department of Administration that she had last been employed in December 1980 and as a consequence this case pertains to the claim of the Department of Administration that there is an underpayment related to the family coverage which starts on February 1, 1981 and runs until April 1, 1982, allowing for a credit of overpayment in the amount of $48.46 for the month of September 1983, leaving a total claimed of $382.64. It is this amount that Petitioner took issue with and requested a timely formal Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes' hearing to resolve.) Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, the date from which the responsibility of the husband to contribute the premiums share no longer being provided by Health and Rehabilitative Services would be January 1981, as opposed to December 1980. Allowing for the grace month of February 1981, the payments would be due for March 1, 1981, through April 1, 1982, allowing credit again for the $48.46 for the month of September 1983, leaving a total due and owing in the way of underpayment of $353.90.
The Issue The issues to be determined are: whether Petitioners have standing; whether the petition of Automated HealthCare Solutions, Inc. (AHCS), was timely filed1/; and whether Respondent’s proposed rules 69L-31.005(2)(d), 69L-31.016(1), and 69L-31.016(2) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority on the grounds raised by Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact The Challenged Proposed Rules At issue in the proposed rule challenge proceeding are three provisions that are part of an overall rulemaking exercise by Respondent Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Respondent, Department, or Division), to amend Florida Administrative Code Chapter 69L-31. That rule chapter bears the misnomer “Utilization and Reimbursement Dispute Rule”--a misnomer because, rather than a single rule, the chapter currently contains 12 rules, with a history note of one additional rule that was repealed. The existing 12 rules in chapter 69L-31, in effect without amendment since November 2006, carry out the Department’s statutory authority to receive, review, and resolve reimbursement disputes between workers’ compensation insurance carriers (carriers) and providers of health care services, medication, and supplies to injured workers. See § 440.13(7), Fla. Stat. A “reimbursement dispute” is “any disagreement” between a provider and carrier “concerning payment for medical treatment.” § 440.13(1)(q), Fla. Stat. The proposed amendments to chapter 69L-31 include revisions to existing rules, the repeal of one existing rule, and the addition of two new rules. The challenges at issue here are directed to both paragraphs of a newly proposed rule which would become rule 69L-31.016, if adopted. One challenge is also directed to an amendment of an existing rule. Proposed rule 69L-31.016, entitled “Reimbursement Disputes Involving a Contract or Workers’ Compensation Managed Care Arrangement or Involving Compensability or Medical Necessity,” would provide as follows, if adopted: When either the health care provider or carrier asserts that a contract between them establishes the amount of reimbursement to the health care provider, or where the carrier provided health care services to the injured worker through a workers’ compensation managed care arrangement pursuant to Section 440.134, F.S., the Department will not issue a finding that there has been any improper disallowance or adjustment. Instead, the determination will only indicate the reimbursement amount for the treatment established by the appropriate reimbursement schedules, practice parameters, and protocols of treatment in Chapter 440, F.S., to assist the health care provider and carrier in their independent application of the provisions of the contract or workers’ compensation managed care arrangement to resolve the dispute. When the carrier asserts the treatment is not compensable or medically necessary and as a result does not reimburse, the determination will only address line items not related to compensability or medical necessity. If the petitioner has submitted documentation demonstrating the carrier authorized the treatment, the Department will issue a finding of improper disallowance or adjustment. Although these rules were not proposed for adoption until December 2016, Respondent has been implementing an unadopted policy that is consistent with paragraph (1) since August 2015. Respondent also has been implementing an unadopted policy that is similar to paragraph (2) since November 2015. The other object of challenge is the proposed deletion of rule 69L-31.005(2)(d), which currently provides: If the answer to question 5 on the Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute Form [asking if reimbursement is pursuant to a contract or rate agreement] is yes, [submit] a copy of all applicable provision(s) of the reimbursement contract. Although the evidence was less than clear, it does not appear that Respondent is already implementing this proposed change. The Parties Petitioners and Intervenors all are regular participants (or, in the case of FSASC, an association whose members are regular participants) in provider-carrier reimbursement disputes pursuant to section 440.13(7), Florida Statutes, before the Division. Petitioners represent the provider side of these reimbursement disputes, while Intervenors represent the carrier side of the reimbursement disputes. Petitioner Oak Hill is a private, for-profit hospital that cares for thousands of Florida patients each year, including injured workers. Petitioner Parallon provides revenue cycle services for HCA-affiliated Florida hospitals, including Oak Hill. Among other things, Parallon acts on behalf of the HCA-affiliated hospitals in workers’ compensation claim disputes. Parallon acts on the hospitals’ behalf to resolve reimbursement disputes with carriers, including: acting for the hospitals to resolve reimbursement disputes under chapter 69L-31; coordinating any resultant administrative litigation before DOAH; and taking steps necessary to collect amounts owed following receipt of the Division’s determination. Parallon is expressly authorized to participate in reimbursement disputes as a “petitioner,” as defined in proposed rule 69L-31.003, on behalf of Oak Hill and other HCA-affiliated hospitals. Oak Hill and Parallon are regulated by, and must comply, with the requirements of chapter 69L-31 (which will include the proposed rules, if adopted) in reimbursement disputes with carriers. Petitioner FSASC is the primary organization of ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) in Florida. Among the purposes of the FSASC is to advance the ASC industry, and its member centers’ interests, through governmental advocacy. To that extent, the FSASC maintains close contact with state agencies to monitor and provide input into legislation and regulations that govern or affect ASC operations. In furtherance of this role, the FSASC has been an active participant in all phases of Respondent’s rulemaking efforts with regard to the proposed rules. Another purpose of the FSASC is to promote, assist, and enhance its members’ ability to provide ambulatory surgical services to injured workers efficiently and cost effectively throughout Florida and, in so doing, promote and protect the interests of the public, patients, and FSASC members. FSASC’s participation in this proceeding is consistent with its purposes, and the relief sought--invalidation of the challenged proposed rules (with possible attorney’s fees incurred in connection with this proceeding)--is appropriate for an organization to pursue in a representative capacity. A substantial number of FSASC’s members provide health care services to patients who are injured workers in Florida and who receive workers’ compensation benefits in accordance with chapter 440. These health care services are reimbursable by the patients’ employers’ carriers. FSASC’s members are participants in reimbursement disputes with carriers and are regulated by, and must comply with, the requirements of chapter 69L-31 (which will include the proposed rules, if adopted). Petitioner AHCS is a technology and prescription medication claims processing company. Many physicians who dispense medication from their offices to injured workers assign their rights, title, and interest to the prescription medication claims to AHCS. Prescription Partners, LLC, is wholly-owned and operated by AHCS and is the billing entity of AHCS. In some instances, AHCS contracts with physicians, while Prescription Partners, LLC, pursues the billing and reimbursement disputes on behalf of the physicians under the contract of assignment. AHCS is authorized to participate in reimbursement disputes as a “petitioner,” as defined in proposed rule 69L-31.003. As a participant in reimbursement disputes, AHCS is regulated by, and must comply with, the requirements of chapter 69L-31 (which will include the proposed rules, if adopted). Respondent is the state agency tasked with administering chapter 440 in a way that promotes “an efficient and self-executing” workers’ compensation system “which is not an economic or administrative burden” and ensures “a prompt and cost-effective delivery of payments.” § 440.015, Fla. Stat. The Division’s medical services section administers the provider-carrier reimbursement dispute process and issues the required determinations pursuant to section 440.13(7). The determinations are made in accordance with chapter 440 and the applicable reimbursement manuals, which are codified as rules. Intervenor Zenith is a foreign, for-profit corporation licensed by the Department to provide workers’ compensation insurance to employers throughout Florida. As a carrier, and in the normal course of its workers’ compensation claim-handling responsibilities, Zenith regularly authorizes, adjusts, and pays for medical benefits for injured workers for causally-related and medically necessary treatment, including treatment rendered by physicians, hospitals, ASCs, pharmacies and prescription drug vendors, physical therapists, and other licensed health care providers, such as Petitioners. As a carrier, Zenith is regulated by chapter 440 and the related rules of the Division, including chapter 69L-31 (which will include the proposed rules, if adopted). All parties stipulated that the challenged proposed rules directly and immediately affect the rights and obligations of Zenith, and directly impact the financial obligations of Zenith in medical bill payment, as well as in any statutory reimbursement dispute between a health care provider and Zenith under section 440.13(7). The proposed rules dictate which processes will govern reimbursement disputes involving Zenith, and whether Zenith may rely fully on the provisions of reimbursement contracts. Intervenors, the Summit Companies, are Florida- licensed monoline workers’ compensation insurance companies that are managed by a managing general agent, Summit Consulting LLC, and regulated by the Department. Pursuant to their workers’ compensation insurance policies, the Summit Companies pay workers’ compensation claims for injured workers, including payment of medical benefits for care provided to injured workers by health care providers who have filed petitions for reimbursement dispute resolution under chapter 69L-31. Also, the Summit Companies have a workers’ compensation managed care arrangement authorized by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) pursuant to section 440.134. Their delegated managed care entity, Heritage Summit HealthCare, LLC, has its own proprietary PPO network. The Summit Companies, either corporately or through their delegated managed care entity, regularly authorize, adjust, and pay medical benefits for injured workers for causally- related and medically necessary treatment, including payment for treatment rendered by physicians, hospitals, ASCs, pharmacies and prescription drug vendors, physical therapists, and other licensed health care providers, such as Petitioners. All parties stipulated that the challenged proposed rules directly and immediately affect the rights and obligations of the Summit Companies, and directly impact their financial obligations in medical bill payment, as well as in reimbursement disputes under section 440.13(7) and chapter 69L-31. The proposed rules dictate which processes will govern reimbursement disputes involving the Summit Companies, including whether the Summit Companies may rely on their managed care arrangements and contracts regulated under the authority of AHCA. To the same extent that all Intervenors are directly and immediately impacted by the challenged proposed rules, Petitioners Oak Hill, Parallon, and AHCS, as well as the members of Petitioner FSASC, are also directly and immediately impacted by the proposed challenged rules, which govern reimbursement disputes under section 440.13(7). Just as the challenged proposed rules directly and immediately impact Intervenors’ financial obligations in medical bill payment to providers, such as Petitioners, the challenged proposed rules also directly and immediately impact Petitioners’ financial rights in having medical bills paid by carriers, such as Intervenors. The challenged proposed rules dictate what processes will be available in reimbursement disputes, not only for Intervenors, but for Petitioners. The challenged proposed rules dictate when the cost-efficient reimbursement dispute process will be, and will not be, fully available to Petitioners and FSASC’s members, and when the prompt delivery of payment envisioned as the end result of the reimbursement dispute process will, or will not be, available to them. The parties also stipulated that the Division’s challenged proposed rules immediately and substantially affect Intervenors because prior authorization, the managed care defense, provider contract disputes, and medical necessity all have been raised as issues in prior chapter 69L-31 provider disputes with these carriers. It stands to reason that the providers who are on the other side of these disputes with carriers are just as immediately and substantially impacted by the proposed rules in this regard. Reason aside, Respondent readily stipulated to the direct, immediate, and substantial impacts to Intervenors, but steadfastly disputed that Petitioners (or the members of Petitioner FSASC) must necessarily be impacted to the same degree. Yet they are, after all, the other side of the reimbursement dispute coin. It is difficult to understand how one side of a dispute could be directly, immediately, and substantially impacted by proposed rules regulating the dispute process, while the other side of the dispute would not be equally impacted. At hearing, the undersigned raised this seeming incongruity, and suggested that Respondent would need to explain its different positions with regard to the factual predicates for standing for Intervenors and for Petitioners, besides the obvious difference that Intervenors were supporting Respondent’s proposed rules while Petitioners were challenging them. Respondent offered no explanation for its incongruous positions, either at hearing or in its PFO. Respondent’s agreement that Intervenors are immediately, directly, and substantially affected by the challenged proposed rules serves as an admission that Petitioners (or Petitioner FSASC’s members) are also immediately, directly, and substantially affected by the challenged proposed rules. Specific examples were offered in evidence of the Division’s refusal to resolve reimbursement disputes because contracts and managed care arrangements were involved, or because payment was adjusted or disallowed due to compensability or medical necessity issues. FSASC provided a concrete example of the application of the unadopted policies to one of its members, resulting in immediate injury when the Division refused to resolve a reimbursement dispute because a contract was involved. Petitioner Oak Hill identified a single reimbursement dispute over a $49,000 underpayment that remained unresolved because of the Division’s refusal to resolve the dispute because either a contract or managed care arrangement was involved. Petitioner Parallon’s income is based, in part, on paid claims by carriers, so it loses income when these reimbursement disputes are not resolved and the carriers are not ordered to promptly pay an amount. Petitioner AHCS offered examples of reimbursement disputes that the Division refused to resolve because the carrier disallowed or adjusted payment due to compensability or medical necessity issues. AHCS also noted that the incidence of carrier disallowances and adjustments of payment for compensability and medical necessity reasons has increased since the Division stopped making determinations to resolve reimbursement disputes on those issues. At the very least, Petitioners have already been harmed in these ways: by the delay in resolving reimbursement disputes, which includes lost cash flow and the time value of the money that carriers are not ordered to pay; by the increased personnel costs necessary to try some other way to pursue these claims; and by the prospect of court filing fees and attorney’s fees to try to litigate their right to payment when deprived of the statutory mechanism for cost-efficient resolution of reimbursement disputes. Conceivably, providers will not have recourse in court to contest disallowance or adjustment of payment, given Respondent’s exclusive jurisdiction to decide any matters concerning reimbursement. § 440.13(11)(c), Fla. Stat. Meanwhile, carriers immediately benefit from delay, by not being ordered to promptly pay claims. In an annual report addressing reimbursement dispute determinations for the fiscal year from July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016, the Division reported that in 85.5 percent of its reimbursement dispute determinations, it determined that the health care providers had been underpaid. Overview of Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Dispute Process Under Florida’s statutory workers’ compensation system, injured workers report their injury to the employer and/or the carrier. With an exception for emergency care, a health care provider must receive authorization for treatment from the carrier prior to providing treatment. After providing treatment, health care providers, including hospitals and physicians, must submit their bills to employers’ carriers; they are prohibited from billing the injured employees who received the treatment. These bills typically have multiple line items, such as for pharmaceutical prescriptions, diagnostic tests, and other services rendered. Carriers are required to review all bills submitted by health care providers to identify overutilization and billing errors, and to determine whether the providers have complied with practice parameters and protocols of treatment established in accordance with chapter 440. § 440.13(6), Fla. Stat. Mr. Sabolic explained that the “protocols of treatment” are the standards of care in section 440.13(15). These include criteria for “[r]easonable necessary medical care of injured employees.” § 440.13(15)(c), Fla. Stat. The carrier review of provider bills must culminate in a determination of whether the bill reflects overutilization of medical services, whether there are billing errors, and whether the bill reflects any violations of the practice parameters and protocols of treatment (standards of care). If a carrier finds any of these to be the case, the carrier is required by statute to disallow or adjust payment accordingly. The carrier is expressly authorized to make this determination “without order of a judge of compensation claims or the department,” if the carrier makes its determination in compliance with section 440.13 and Department rules. § 440.13(6), Fla. Stat. The Department’s rules require carriers to communicate to providers the carriers’ decisions under section 440.13(6) to pay or to deny, disallow, or adjust payment, with reasons for their decisions, in an “explanation of bill review” (EOBR).5/ If a carrier contests or disputes certain line items on a medical bill, the EOBR must identify the line items disputed and the reasons for the dispute, using EOBR codes and code descriptor. The EOBR code list, with 98 codes and descriptors, is set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.740(13)(b). All but two of the codes describe reasons for disallowing or adjusting payment. EOBR Code 10 means payment denial of the entire bill, when the injury or illness is not compensable. EOBR Code 11 is used for partial denial of payment, where, although there is a compensable injury or illness, a diagnosis or procedure code for a particular line item service is determined by the carrier to be unrelated to the compensable condition. The EOBR coding rule provides that up to three codes can be assigned to each line item to “describe the basis for the claim administrator’s reimbursement decision in descending order of importance[.]” In addition, there is a “free-form” box in which additional notes of explanation may be given. The carrier’s determination to disallow or adjust payment of a health care provider’s bill, made pursuant to section 440.13(6), and explained to the health care provider by means of an EOBR, is the action that sets up a potential reimbursement dispute pursuant to section 440.13(7). “Any health care provider who elects to contest the disallowance or adjustment of payment by a carrier under subsection (6) must, within 45 days after receipt of notice of disallowance or adjustment of payment, petition the department to resolve the dispute.” § 440.13(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). The petition must be accompanied by “all documents and records that support the allegations in the petition.” Id. The carrier whose EOBR is disputed “must” then submit to the Department within 30 days of receipt of the petition all documentation substantiating the carrier’s disallowance or adjustment. § 440.13(7)(b), Fla. Stat. Section 440.13(7)(c) and (d) provide for the culmination of the reimbursement dispute process, as follows: Within 120 days after receipt of all documentation, the department must provide to the petitioner, the carrier, and the affected parties a written determination of whether the carrier properly adjusted or disallowed payment. The department must be guided by standards and policies set forth in this chapter, including all applicable reimbursement schedules, practice parameters, and protocols of treatment, in rendering its determination. If the department finds an improper disallowance or improper adjustment of payment by an insurer, the insurer shall reimburse the health care provider, facility, insurer, or employer within 30 days, subject to the penalties provided in this subsection. (emphasis added). Section 440.13(7)(e) provides that the Department “shall adopt rules to carry out this subsection,” i.e., the reimbursement dispute process. As noted, the Department did so in 2006, in promulgating chapter 69L-31. The rules were transferred from AHCA, which was the state agency vested with the statutory authority to determine reimbursement disputes between providers and carriers until the Department took over those functions in 2005.6/ Evolution of the Policies in the Challenged Proposed Rules Reimbursement Pursuant to a Provider-Carrier Contract or Managed Care Arrangement For approximately a decade, the Division accepted petitions to resolve reimbursement disputes when the reimbursement amount was determined by a contract between the provider and carrier. The Division resolved these disputes by issuing written determinations of whether the carrier properly adjusted or disallowed payment, and if the Division determined the carrier improperly adjusted or disallowed payment, the Division would specify the contract reimbursement amount that the carrier was required to pay within 30 days. That is because section 440.13(12) expressly recognizes that reimbursement to providers shall be either an amount set as the maximum reimbursement allowance (MRA) in fee schedules (or other amount set by a statutory formula), or the agreed-upon contract price.7/ Health care network reimbursement contracts typically do not (but may) include prices stated in dollar amounts. Instead, they frequently establish the price for reimbursement as a percentage of the MRA, or a percentage of allowable charges for services rendered. The Division’s reimbursement manuals in effect today, adopted as rules, recognize in a variety of contexts that the amount a provider is to be reimbursed is the contract amount, when there is a contract between the provider and carrier. The Workers’ Compensation Health Care Provider Reimbursement Manual currently in effect provides this introductory statement: Reimbursement will be made to a Florida health care provider after applying the appropriate reimbursement policies contained in this Manual. A carrier will reimburse a health care provider either the MRA in the appropriate reimbursement schedule or a mutually agreed upon contract price. (emphasis added). Florida Workers’ Compensation Health Care Provider Reimbursement Manual (2016 edition) at 15, adopted and incorporated by reference in rule 69L-7.020, effective July 1, 2017. The manual has dozens of references to reimbursing at the contract price, such as this example for reimbursement for multiple surgeries: Reimbursement for the primary surgical procedure will be the MRA listed in Chapter 3, Part B of this Manual or the agreed upon contract price. Reimbursement for additional surgical procedure(s) will be fifty percent (50%) of the listed MRA in Chapter 3, Part B of this Manual or the agreed upon contract price. * * * Note: If there is an agreed upon contract between the health care provider and the carrier, the contract establishes the reimbursement at a specified contract price. (emphasis added). Id. at 63. Similarly, the ASC reimbursement manual in effect has multiple references to reimbursement at the contract price or contract amount, such as this example for surgical services: For each billed CPT® code listed in Chapter 6 of this Manual, the ASC shall be reimbursed either: The MRA if listed in Chapter 6 of this Manual; or The agreed upon contract price. For each billed CPT® code not listed in Chapter 6 of this Manual, the ASC shall be reimbursed: Sixty percent (60%) of the ASC’s billed charge; or The agreed upon contract price. * * * Note: If there is an agreed upon contract between the ASC and the carrier, the contract establishes the reimbursement at the specified contract price. (emphasis added). Florida Workers’ Compensation Ambulatory Surgical Center Reimbursement Manual (2015 edition) at 17, incorporated by reference in rule 69L-7.020, effective January 1, 2016. See also ASC Manual App. A at 1 (surgical implant MRA is “50% above acquisition cost; amount certified or contract amount.”). The reimbursement manual for hospitals has similar references, including this directive for inpatient services: Except as otherwise provided in this Manual, charges for hospital inpatient services shall be reimbursed according to the Per Diem Fee Schedule provided in this Chapter or according to a mutually agreed upon contract reimbursement agreement between the hospital and the insurer. (emphasis added). Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals (2014 edition) at 15, adopted and incorporated by reference in rule 69L-7.501, effective January 1, 2015. In 2013, the Division submitted a legislative proposal for the Department to consider including in its proposed bill. The Division requested an amendment to section 440.13 to “[r]emove contracted reimbursement from [reimbursement dispute] resolution authority of [the] department.” Jt. Ex. 51 at 1. That proposal did not lead to a statutory change. An example of how the Division resolved reimbursement disputes involving contracts before its recent policy is shown in Exhibit FS1, a “Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute Determination.” According to the document, at issue was a reimbursement dispute regarding a bill for one service, for which the carrier issued an EOBR disallowing payment. The Division’s finding regarding reimbursement was that the contract at issue “provides for reimbursement at the lesser of 90% of billed charges or 90% of the fee schedule.” The Division calculated the contract price and determined that the “total correct reimbursement amount” per the contract was $2,334.60. The determination, issued June 30, 2015, was: The Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation has determined that the petitioner substantiated entitlement to additional reimbursement of disputed services based upon the documentation in evidence and in accordance with the provisions of the Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual [for ASCs], 2011 Edition, Chapter 3, page 26. The respondent shall remit the petitioner the amount of $2,334.60 and provide the Division proof of reimbursement to the petitioner within thirty (30) days of receipt of this notice[.] Ex. FS1 at 2. The evolution was a little different for reimbursement disputes involving workers’ compensation managed care arrangements. Rule 69L-31.015, adopted by the Department in 2006, provided as follows: A health care provider may not elect to contest under Section 440.13(7), F.S., disallowance or adjustment of payment by a carrier for services rendered pursuant to a managed care arrangement. Mr. Sabolic explained that while this rule was in effect, the Division would dismiss petitions that disclosed managed care arrangements. But the rule was repealed in response to a challenge to the rule’s validity. As Mr. Sabolic recalled it, the challenger was Parallon or an individual HCA-affiliated hospital. According to Mr. Sabolic, the Division agreed that it did not have the authority to simply dismiss petitions. The rule history note states that the rule repeal was effective May 22, 2014.8/ For the 15-month period from late May 2014 through late August 2015, the Division accepted reimbursement dispute petitions and resolved the reimbursement disputes, even though a workers’ compensation managed care arrangement was involved, just as it had been doing for years for reimbursement disputes involving contracts. On or about August 24, 2015, the Division changed its policy on issuing determinations when a contract (including a managed care arrangement) was alleged in the petition. In all determinations of reimbursement disputes issued after August 24, 2015, if a contract or managed care arrangement was alleged, the Division stopped making findings regarding the contracted-for reimbursement amount. Instead, the Division started reciting the fee schedule/MRA amount or applicable statutory formula amount, making no determination regarding whether the carrier properly adjusted or disallowed payment, or, if an improper adjustment or disallowance, how much the reimbursement should have been under the contract and how much the carrier was required to reimburse the provider within 30 days. The Division changed the name of the form it used from “Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute Determination” to just “Reimbursement Dispute Determination,” signaling that the Division would no longer be resolving reimbursement disputes involving contracts. Instead, the following language appeared in each such determination: The amount listed above does not apply to any contractual arrangement. If a contractual arrangement exists between the parties, reimbursement should be made pursuant to such contractual arrangement. Exhibit FS3 is an example showing a Division “determination” applying its new policy to a reimbursement dispute petition filed by an ASC member of FSASC. Part IV of the form, “Reimbursement Dispute Policies and Guidelines,” reflects (as did prior determinations) that the reimbursement manual for ASCs, adopted by rule, “sets the policies and reimbursement amounts for medical bills.” As previously noted, the reimbursement manuals set reimbursement amounts at either the MRA/statutory formula or the agreed-upon contract price, consistent with the policy in section 440.13(12)(a). Nonetheless, the Division added a note to the end of part IV: NOTE: This reimbursement determination is limited in scope to standards and policies set forth in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, including all applicable reimbursement schedules, practice parameters, and protocols of treatment. It does not interpret, apply or otherwise take into account any contractual arrangement between the parties governing reimbursement for services provided by health care providers, including any workers’ compensation managed care arrangement under section 440.134, Florida Statutes. Ex. FS3 at 2. Accordingly, even though the determination form reflects that the ASC petitioner met its filing requirements for a reimbursement dispute over a bill for services in the amount of $5,188.00, none of which was paid according to the EOBR, and even though the carrier failed to file a response to the petition, the Division did not make a determination that the carrier improperly disallowed payment or that the petitioner had substantiated entitlement to additional reimbursement in the amount of the agreed-upon contract price, as it had in previous determinations. Instead, the Division set forth the “correct reimbursement” amount that would apply if the MRA applied, while noting that amount would not apply if there was a contractual arrangement providing a different amount. The carrier was not ordered to remit any amount within 30 days. Reimbursement Disputes Involving Issues of Compensability or Medical Necessity Prior to November 2015, the Division resolved reimbursement disputes by determining the issues as framed by the carrier’s actions under section 440.13(6), to disallow or adjust payment of a bill or specific line items in a bill for reasons (codes) in the EOBR, which were contested by the provider in a timely-filed petition under section 440.13(7)(a). The EOBR code list contains one code (code 10) for denial of payment of an entire claim based on non-compensability of an injury or illness. One other code (code 11) is for partial denial of payment, where there is a compensable injury, but a specific line item indicates treatment unrelated to the compensable injury. Five additional codes (codes 21 through 26) apply to disallowed payments for various medical necessity reasons. Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-7.740(13)(b). Prior to November 2015, the Division resolved reimbursement disputes when the provider timely petitioned to contest the disallowance or adjustment of payment by a carrier, as set forth in the EOBR, including when the EOBR cited compensability and/or medical necessity code(s) as the reason(s) for disallowing or adjusting payment of a provider’s bill. On or about November 2, 2015, the Division changed its policy and no longer addressed in its reimbursement dispute determinations whether a carrier properly or improperly disallowed or adjusted payment for reasons of medical necessity or compensability. Exhibit AH6 is an example of a Division written determination that makes no determination of whether a carrier properly or improperly disallowed payment of a line item based on a medical necessity issue (EOBR Code 24). Instead, the “determination” included this note: Note: The Department will not address any disallowance or adjustment of payment where the basis for the disallowance or adjustment or payment by the carrier involves denial of compensability of the claim or assertion that the specific services provided are not medically necessary. Ex. AH6 at 2. This note has been included in all determinations issued after November 2015, where payment was disallowed or adjusted based on medical necessity or compensability. Rulemaking Process The Division began rule development to incorporate its policy changes in amendments to chapter 69L-31. A Notice of Development of Proposed Rules was published on December 16, 2015. The notice set forth the preliminary text of proposed amendments, including new proposed rule 69L-31.016, entitled “Reimbursement Disputes Involving a Contract or Workers’ Compensation Managed Care Arrangement.” The notice stated that the purpose and effect of proposed rule 69L-31.016 was “to limit the scope of dispute resolutions to compliance with standards under Chapter 440, F.S. and exclude issues of contract interpretation.” The exclusion of disallowed or adjusted payments based on issues of compensability and medical necessity, not mentioned in the statement of purpose and effect, was initially put in rule 69L-31.005, in a paragraph stating that the Department will only address specific EOBR line items where the carrier adjusted or disallowed payment and are disputed by the provider, but then stating that the Department will not address specific EOBR adjustment or disallowance items involving compensability or medical necessity, even if disputed. A rule development workshop was held on January 12, 2016. The Department published a second Notice of Development of Proposed Rules, revising the proposed changes to chapter 69L-31, including both the contract/managed care exclusion and the compensability/medical necessity exclusion. On June 10, 2016, the Division held a second rule development workshop addressing the proposed rule revisions. On December 7, 2016, the Division published a Notice of Proposed Rules, formally initiating rulemaking to revise chapter 69L-31. The notice set forth a revised proposed rule 69L-31.016. Its new title was “Reimbursement Disputes Involving a Contract or Workers’ Compensation Managed Care Arrangement or Involving Compensability or Medical Necessity,” joining in one rule all of the new exceptions, for which the Division would not be making determinations of whether carriers properly or improperly adjusted or disallowed payments. As proposed, the rule provided: When either the health care provider or carrier asserts that a contract between them establishes the amount of reimbursement to the health care provider, or where the carrier provided health care services to the injured worker through a workers’ compensation managed care arrangement pursuant to Section 440.134, F.S., the Department will not issue a finding that there has been any improper disallowance or adjustment. Instead, the determination will only indicate the reimbursement amount for the treatment established by the appropriate reimbursement schedules, practice parameters, and protocols of treatment under Chapter 440, F.S., to assist the health care provider and carrier in their independent application of the provisions of the contract or workers’ compensation managed care arrangement to resolve the dispute. When the carrier asserts the treatment is not compensable or medically necessary and as a result does not reimburse, the Department will not issue a finding that there has been any improper disallowance or adjustment. Instead, the determination will only indicate the reimbursement amount for the treatment established by the appropriate reimbursement schedules, practice parameters, and protocols of treatment under Chapter 440, F.S., should compensability or medical necessity be later established. The stated purpose of proposed rule 69L-31.016 was to specify “that the scope of Department determinations involving reimbursement disputes is limited to findings relating to reimbursement schedules, practice parameters, and protocols of treatment, and [to clarify] that the Department will issue no findings regarding an improper disallowance or adjustment in reimbursement involving managed care contracts or when the carrier asserts that medical treatment was either not compensable or not medically necessary[.]” Jt. Ex. 3. As published in December 2016, proposed rule 69L- 31.016 cited sections 440.13(7)(e) and 440.591 as the “rulemaking authority,” and sections 440.13(7) and (12)(a) and 440.134(15) as the “laws implemented.” The Division’s notice stated that, based on its determinations as to adverse impact and regulatory costs: “A SERC has not been prepared by the Agency.” Jt. Ex. 3. By letter dated December 28, 2016, Parallon proposed a LCRA to the proposed rule 69L-31.016(1) (and to other proposed rules not at issue in this proceeding). The LCRA explained that Parallon was already experiencing increased costs because of the Division’s unadopted policy, and Parallon proposed that the most appropriate lower cost alternative to accomplish the statutory objectives was not to adopt proposed rule 69L-31.016(1). On January 5, 2017, the Division held a public hearing on the proposed rules. Petitioners (through counsel) offered comments in opposition to the proposed rules. Parallon’s counsel also submitted the LCRA letter into the record. On May 2, 2017, the Division published a Notice of Correction. The notice stated that, contrary to the statement in the Notice of Proposed Rules, SERCs had been prepared for the proposed rules, and that the SERC for proposed rule 69L-31.016 now had been revised to address the LCRA. The impression given by the various documents identified as a SERC or revised SERC, half of which are entitled “Department of Financial Services Analysis to Determine if a [SERC] is Required,” all of which are similar or identical in content, and none of which bear a date, is that, prior to the LCRA, Respondent did not prepare a SERC for proposed rule 69L- 31.016; it prepared a document by which it determined that no SERC was required. After the LCRA was filed, Respondent added a reference to the LCRA, but otherwise did not change the content of its non-SERC. In the Notice of Correction, the Division stated: “The [SERC] for each of the above-referenced proposed rules is available by accessing the Department’s website at http://www.myfloridacfo.com/Division/WC/noticesRules.htm.” The document titled “Department of Financial Services Analysis to Determine if Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs Is Required,” referred to by the Division as the SERC, was not available on the DFS website on May 2, 2017, as the Notice of Correction indicated. Instead, it was available at the referenced website location on or after May 3, 2017. Upon request by counsel for Parallon on May 3, 2017, the document referred to as a SERC was also provided to Parallon. Mr. Sabolic testified that the document referred to as the SERC was actually available at the Division on May 2, 2017, and would have been made available to someone if it was requested on that day. However, the noticed means by which the document would be “made available” was at a specific website location that was not functional until May 3, 2017. The so-called SERC document for proposed rule 69L- 31.016 suffers from several obvious deficiencies. As to the Division’s “economic analysis,” the document states: “N/A.” That is because the Division did no economic analysis.9/ In response to two separate prompts, for the Division to set forth a “good faith estimate of the number of individuals and entities likely to be required to comply with the rule,” and separately, to give a “general description of the types of individuals likely to be affected by the rule,” the Division gave the identical response: “This Rule changes how the Medical Services Section review Petitions for Resolution of Reimbursement Disputes. Only the Medical Services Section will be required to comply.” In addition, the document indicates (with no explanation or analysis) that there will be no transactional costs to persons required to comply with the new rule, and no adverse impact at all on small businesses. In contrast to the so-called SERC document indicating that only the medical services section will be required to comply with, or be impacted by, the proposed rule, in the Division’s 2013 legislative proposal seeking to remove its statutory authority to determine reimbursement disputes involving contracts, the Division was able to identify persons who would be affected by the proposal, acknowledging as follows: “Workers’ compensation carriers, including self- insurers (DFS Div. of Risk Mgmt), third party administrators, and health care providers, including facilities, are affected.” And, of course, the Division was well aware by May 2017 of the variety of providers and carriers expressing their interests and concerns during the rule development that had been ongoing for 17 months by then. To say that the Division gave the SERC task short shrift would be generous. The Division did not take this task seriously. The so-called SERC document also identified the Parallon LCRA. In response to the requirement to describe the LCRA and provide either a statement adopting it or a statement “of the reasons for rejecting the alternative in favor of the proposed rule,” the Division stated: Parallon’s lower cost regulatory alternative consisted of a cost-based argument against the adoption of the proposed rule on the basis that the existing rule provides a lower cost alternative. The Division rejected the regulatory alternative and intends to move forward with adoption on the proposed rule, but will revise the proposed rule to read as follows[.] Jt. Ex. 12, at bates-stamp p. 48. The reference to a revision to the proposed rule does not belong in the statement of reasons for rejecting the LCRA. Its placement there was misleading, as if the revision to the proposed rule helped to explain why the Division rejected the LCRA. But no revision was made to the rule to which the LCRA was directed--proposed rule 69L-31.016(1). The revision was to proposed rule 69L- 31.016(2), not addressed by the LCRA. At hearing, Mr. Sabolic attempted to provide the statement of reasons for rejecting the LCRA, missing in the so- called SERC document. He said that the cost-based argument was considered speculative and lacked data (but that explanation was not in the so-called SERC document). Although he thought that the SERC document stated that the LCRA was rejected because it was based on a “faulty” cost-based argument, the word “faulty” was not in the SERC. On its face, the SERC offers no reason why the “cost-based argument” was rejected— just that it was rejected. The amendment to proposed rule 69L-31.016(2) mentioned in the SERC document was also published on May 2, 2017, in a Notice of Change. The change was shown as follows: When the carrier asserts the treatment is not compensable or medically necessary and as a result does not reimburse, the Department will not issue a finding that there has been any improper disallowance or adjustment. Instead, the determination will only address line items not related to indicate the reimbursement amount for the treatment established by the appropriate reimbursement schedules, practice parameters, and protocols of treatment under Chapter 440, F.S., should compensability or medical necessity be later established. If the petitioner has submitted documentation demonstrating the carrier authorized the treatment, the Department will issue a finding of improper disallowance or adjustment. The Notice of Change did not change either of the other challenged provisions—proposed rule 69L-31.016(1) and the proposed deletion of rule 69L-31.005(2)(d). The Notice of Change deleted the prior citation to section 440.13(12)(a) as one of the laws implemented by proposed rule 69L-31.016, leaving only sections 440.13(7) and 440.134(15) as the laws implemented. Division’s Justifications for the Challenged Proposed Rules Mr. Sabolic was Respondent’s hearing representative and sole witness to explain and support the challenged rules. Mr. Sabolic testified that when a contract dictates the reimbursement amount, the Division does not believe it has statutory authority to interpret or enforce contract terms. Yet he acknowledged that the Division’s reimbursement determinations were required to be based on policies set forth in chapter 440, and that the Division was required to apply its reimbursement manuals that are promulgated as rules. Both chapter 440 and the reimbursement manuals expressly require reimbursement at the agreed-upon contract price, as detailed above. The Division recognized this for a decade, during which it applied chapter 440 and its reimbursement manuals to determine the agreed-upon contract price, resolve reimbursement disputes, and order carriers to pay the amount required by their contracts. The Division’s rationale stands in stark contrast to the Division’s 2013 request for a legislative amendment to remove its statutory authority to determine reimbursement disputes when reimbursement is dictated by contracts. The Division’s request constitutes an admission that it believes it has the statutory authority it now says it lacks. Apart from statutory authority, Mr. Sabolic indicated that in the decade during which the Division did resolve reimbursement disputes involving contracts, it was sometimes difficult to determine whether there was a contract in effect between the parties. There was a variety of contracts, and sometimes they were complex. With regard to managed care arrangements, Mr. Sabolic said that, similar to contracts, the Division does not think it has the power to interpret or enforce managed care arrangements, because that power lies within AHCA under section 440.134. He said that section 440.134(15) was cited as a law implemented by proposed rule 69L-31.016 because the statute addresses grievance or complaint procedures under a managed care arrangement. Intervenors Summit Companies attempted to prove that providers are required to resolve reimbursement disputes involving workers’ compensation managed care arrangements by using the grievance process described in section 440.134(15). The evidence failed to support that contention. The evidence showed that the grievance form used by the Summit Companies’ managed care arrangement, approved by AHCA, describes the grievance process as encompassing “dissatisfaction with medical care issues provided by or on behalf of a workers’ compensation managed care arrangement.” Tr. 323. As confirmed by the definitions of “complaint” and “grievance” in the workers’ compensation managed care law, the grievance process is used to resolve an injured worker’s dissatisfaction with an insurer’s managed care arrangement, including a refusal to provide medical care or the care provided. See § 440.134(1)(b) and (d), Fla. Stat. Although under AHCA’s rules and the Summit Companies’ form, providers may initiate the grievance process, they would be doing so essentially on behalf of the injured worker or in tandem with the injured worker to resolve the injured worker’s dissatisfaction with medical care issues. When the issue is the insurer’s refusal to provide medical care, the grievance process is an administrative remedy for the injured worker that has to be exhausted before an injured worker can file a petition for benefits pursuant to section 440.192. Not surprisingly, providers have not attempted to file grievances to raise reimbursement disputes with insurers, as nothing in section 440.134(15), the rules, or the Summit Companies’ approved form contemplate use of the process for that purpose, much less mandate it. Strangely, Mr. Sabolic attempted to justify the proposed rule’s carve-outs from the reimbursement dispute process by reference to section 440.13(11)(c), which gives the Department “exclusive jurisdiction to decide any matters concerning reimbursement[.]” As he put it: I think that the statute indicates we can decide any matter relating to reimbursement under 440.13(11)(c), and that’s how we’re deciding to deal with those situations when a managed care arrangement or a contract is involved. That’s our decision. Our decision is that that determination’s going to reflect the amount that is in the applicable reimbursement manual for that service date. Tr. 232. It must be noted that section 440.13(11)(c) was not cited as one of the laws implemented by the proposed rules, even if the premise could be accepted that a grant of exclusive jurisdiction to decide any matter concerning reimbursement includes authority to decide never to decide certain matters concerning reimbursement. Mr. Sabolic admitted that under proposed rule 69L-31.016(1), the Division does not and will not issue a written determination of whether the carrier properly adjusted or disallowed payment when a contract or managed care arrangement is involved. Mr. Sabolic testified that the proposed deletion of rule 69L-31.005(2)(d) (requiring a copy of the contract or managed care arrangement addressing reimbursement) is tied to proposed rule 69L-31.016(1) that gets the Division out of the business of looking at contracts. The Division will not require any proof that a contract or managed care arrangement governs reimbursement so as to trigger the no-decision decision. Instead, if either a provider indicates in its petition or a carrier indicates in its response that reimbursement is pursuant to a contract or managed care arrangement, that ends the inquiry, and the Division will not determine whether the carrier properly adjusted or disallowed payment. Mr. Sabolic said that he was not concerned with the potential for abuse, because in the decade when the Division was in the business of interpreting and applying reimbursement provisions in contracts, it was very rare that the parties disagreed on whether a contract was in effect between them that governed reimbursement. Mr. Sabolic offered no justification for carving out from reimbursement disputes carrier adjustments or disallowances of payment based on compensability or medical necessity issues. He just reported the Division’s decision that if a carrier disallows or adjusts payment for line items on bills and cites reasons (EOBR codes) involving compensability or medical necessity, “we will indicate that we’re not going to issue a determination on those line items and [we will] only issue a determination on those line items which don’t reflect the carrier’s disallowance related to compensability or medical necessity.” But if the petitioner gives “proof that the carrier authorized treatment,” the Division “will proceed with rendering a determination related to those line items.” Tr. 197. The Division’s determinations under proposed rules 69L-31.016(1) (when a contract or managed care arrangement is alleged) and 69L-31.016(2) (when payment is disallowed or adjusted for compensability or medical necessity reasons) are characterized by the Division as “neutral determinations” in which there is no winner and no loser. A more fitting characterization is “non-determination.”
The Issue The primary issue to be decided in this proceeding is whether Respondent's backdated, retroactive workers' compensation policy complied with the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes. If not, was the penalty properly assessed.
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of fact: Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat.; Pet. Exs. 1, 2, 3. Respondent is a corporation in the State of Florida and was formed on March 6, 1996. Pet. Ex. 4. Respondent operates a preschool located at 15 Northwest 5th Avenue, Hallandale, Florida 33309, known as Hallandale Academy. Pet. Ex. 13 at 4:11-25, 5:1-5. Respondent obtained a workers' compensation policy AWC1098385 through Associated Industries Insurance Company, an insurance carrier authorized to write workers' compensation policies in the State of Florida. Respondent's workers' compensation policy was effective from February 5, 2018, to March 11, 2018. Pet. Exs. 9 and 14. On or about February 28, 2018, Respondent received notification of cancellation of its policy from its insurance carrier. § 440.42(3), Fla. Stat.; Pet. Ex. 9. Respondent's workers' compensation policy was cancelled by Associated Industries Insurance Company on March 11, 2018, at 12:01 a.m. due to nonpayment of the premium. Pet. Exs. 8, 9, 10, and 11. On or about March 11, 2018, Associated Industries Insurance Company notified the Department of the cancelled policy. § 440.185(6), Fla. Stat.; Pet. Ex. 14. On March 16, 2018, Workers' Compensation Compliance Investigators Faline Moeses ("Moeses") and Emily Metzenheim ("Metzenheim") conducted a routine workers' compensation compliance investigation of Respondent's preschool. Pet. Ex. 8. Moeses confirmed that Respondent had no workers' compensation coverage through the Department's internal database, Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS".)3/ Pet. Exs. 8 and 14. Moeses confirmed that her findings in CCAS matched the information found on the National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") website.4/ Pet. Ex. 8. Both CCAS and NCCI confirmed that Respondent did not have an active workers' compensation insurance policy on March 16, 2018, when Moeses visited. Pet. Ex. 8. On March 16, 2018, while at Respondent's place of business, Moeses called Respondent's insurance carrier, Associated Industries Insurance Company, and received additional confirmation that Respondent's workers' compensation insurance policy had been cancelled and was not in effect due to nonpayment of premium. Pet. Exs. 8 and 9. Moeses contacted Respondent's corporate officer, Davain Baldeo ("Mr. Baldeo"), by phone. He identified himself as the owner of Baldeo Enterprises, Inc. Pet. Ex. 8. Moeses provided information to Mr. Baldeo about the purpose of the investigation. Pet. Ex. 8. Moeses requested to meet with Mr. Baldeo in person to discuss the investigation. Mr. Baldeo refused the request to meet and asked that Moeses cease speaking with his employees and send all communications by mail.5/ Pet. Exs. 8. On March 19, 2018, a Request for Production of Business Records was sent via certified mail to Respondent. Pet. Exs. 1 and 8. The Request for Production of Business Records requested several categories of business records from Respondent for the period of December 15, 2017, through March 16, 2018. See Petitioner's Exhibit 1 for a detailed description of the records requested. Respondent submitted sufficient business records to the Department in response to the Request for Production of Business Records, to allow it to complete its investigation. Pet. Ex. 5. The records submitted by Respondent confirmed that Respondent employed four or more regular and customary employees during the period of December 15, 2017, through March 16, 2018. Pet. Exs. 5 and 8. On March 19, 2018, Associated Industries Insurance Company, reinstated Respondent's workers' compensation policy and it backdated the policy to March 11, 2018. Pet. Exs. 8, 9, 10, and 11. On April 6, 2018, the Request for Production of Business Records was converted into a BRR based on the lapse in Respondent's workers' compensation insurance coverage between March 11 and March 19, 2018. Pet. Ex. 2. On April 19, 2018, the BRR was served on Respondent. Pet. Ex. 8. Respondent did not provide any additional documents in response to the BRR. Pet. Ex. 8. Department Auditor Christopher Collins was assigned to calculate a penalty for Respondent's noncompliance with Florida's Workers' Compensation Law. Pet. Ex. 8. Respondent's business records were sufficient for the Department to determine Respondent's payroll for the audit review period. The Department assessed a penalty against Respondent for its noncompliance with chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Pet. Ex. 3 and 5. The Department served Respondent with an Order of Penalty Assessment totaling $1,000.00. Pet. Exs. 3 and 11. Respondent's period of noncompliance was March 11 through March 18, 2018, as Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for this period. Pet. Exs. 8, 9, 10, and 11. Based on Respondent's records, the Department determined Respondent's gross payroll during the period of noncompliance was $3,423.99. Pet. Ex. 11. Respondent's unsecured gross payroll was then divided by 100 so that it could be multiplied by the approved manual rate in order to determine the premium due. Pet. Ex. 11. The approved manual rates are drafted by NCCI and then approved by the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation. § 627.091(4), Fla. Stat. The approved manual rates represent the risk factor associated with each NCCI class code and are critical to calculating a premium. Pet. Ex. 7. The calculations reveal that Respondent would have paid $62.32 in workers' compensation premium for its unsecured gross payroll, had coverage been in place, and not lapsed during the period of March 11 through March 18, 2018. Pet. Ex. 11. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Florida's Workers' Compensation Law by employing four or more employees without securing the payment of workers' compensation from March 11 through March 18, 2018, or a proper exemption. This violation required the issuance of the BRR and OPA to Respondent. Petitioner provided clear and convincing evidence that its penalty calculation was correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order imposing and assessing the proposed Order of Penalty Assessment against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 7th day of January, 2019.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, Medical Services (the Department), correctly determined the amount of reimbursement Petitioner, Zenith Insurance Company (Zenith), owes to Lawnwood Regional Medical Center (Lawnwood) for medical services, pursuant to section 440.13(7), Florida Statutes (2018).1/ More specifically, the issues raised in this case are: whether Zenith properly adjusted or disallowed payment by paying what it believed were “reasonable” charges for the Workers’ Compensation medical services provided; whether the Department’s consideration of a “Stop-Loss” percentage-based methodology, as opposed to a per diem rate, may serve as a basis for reimbursement; and what, if any, is the additional amount Zenith owes to Lawnwood for reimbursement in this case.
Findings Of Fact Parties and Participants The Department is the state agency responsible for administration of the Florida’s Workers’ Compensation process set forth in chapter 440. As such, it has exclusive jurisdiction to decide any matters concerning reimbursement for medical services under this process. See § 440.13, Fla. Stat. Zenith is a carrier as defined by section 440.13(1)(c). Lawnwood, a non-party, is a health care facility as defined by section 440.13(1)(g). Lawnwood is part of a network known as East Florida Division, Inc. (East Florida), a division of HCA Inc. Parallon, a non-party, manages the billing, revenue cycle management, and reimbursement dispute process for certain hospitals, including Lawnwood. (Jt. Stip. Facts, ¶¶ 33 and 34). Parallon filed the Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute in this case on behalf of Lawnwood. Coventry Health Care Workers Compensation, Inc., and/or Coventry Life and Health Insurance Company on behalf of First Health Group Corp. (Coventry), serves as a “middleman” between insurance carriers and health care providers. As explained by Carol Brodie, Coventry offers carriers, such as Zenith, access to special rates it has negotiated with health care facilities and providers. Essentially, Zenith is a third-party beneficiary of the rates negotiated between East Florida and Coventry. Medical Services at Issue Lawnwood provided health services to a workers’ compensation patient (patient) from January 21 through 25, 2016. The patient was to be treated for a routine outpatient surgical procedure to release an extensor tendon of his index finger. According to the unrefuted testimony of Linda Joy (a Zenith employee), the surgeon inadvertently cut the patient’s digital nerve, artery, and vein. This resulted in more extensive treatment than originally contemplated. The patient was ultimately admitted to the hospital for inpatient care, and released four days later. Payment Dispute Lawnwood issued a bill to Zenith for $163,697.30 (Lawnwood bill) for the services and treatment it provided to patient. Zenith regularly audits bills it receives from health care providers and makes adjustments if necessary. These adjustments are provided to the health care provider along with the payment in the form of an Explanation of Bill Review (EOBR). The EOBR goes through each itemized line in a bill and explains to the provider what was reduced and why. In this case, Zenith sent the Lawnwood bill to Ms. Joy for review. She reviewed the patient’s relevant medical records, as well as billing documentation, and a coding summary sheet (containing codes for procedures, medications, and other services utilized by the health care and insurance industry) from Lawnwood. Ms. Joy opined the Lawnwood bill was very high for the services provided. Both of the Department’s witnesses also felt the amount billed by Lawnwood was unexpected. Andrew Sabolic (an assistant director at the Department) was surprised at Lawnwood’s bill, stating: “it was an amount that I didn’t anticipate a hospital would charge for those types of services.” Similarly, Lynne Metz (a Department employee) testified: “The charges were high compared to what I would expect.” The Department has not made any determination or review of whether the bills or charges submitted by the hospital are reasonable for the services provided. (Jt. Stip. Fact, ¶ 28). Ms. Joy and other Zenith staff compared the charges and the information on the coding summary sheet with payments of other similar providers through a medical revenue and billing database program, known as “OPTUM 360 Revenue Cycle Program” (OPTUM360). In making the comparison, Zenith also utilized databases and benchmarks that are accepted in the industry, including Medicare, the MediSpan Drug Database, Health Care Blue Book, Health Engine, other state’s workers’ compensation reimbursement formulas, usual and customary charges, and other hospitals’ charges in the same zip code as Lawnwood. Based on the OPTUM360 results and its own analysis, Zenith calculated the total reimbursement amount acceptable to other health care providers under Medicare for the same treatment and services would be $11,173.81. As a result, Zenith issued an EOBR that adjusted the Lawnwood bill and indicated, “THIS BILL HAS BEEN PRICED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF YOUR CONTRACT WITH COVENTRY NATIONAL.” Along with the EOBR, Zenith provided benchmark data to Lawnwood to support its repricing, editing or adjustment of the bills at issue. (Jt. Stip. Facts, ¶¶ 36 and 37). In the EOBR, Zenith used four explanation codes: “47,” “81,” “92,” and “93,” as authorized by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.740(13)(a) and (b), to explain why payment was disallowed or adjusted. Code “47” (Payment disallowed: insufficient documentation: invoice or certification not submitted for implant) was used for the disallowance on a line item for an implant. Id. The parties agree that was appropriate. Code “81” (Payment adjusted: billing errors: payment modified pursuant to charge audit) was used for the line items other than the disallowed implant charge, based on Zenith’s review of the entire bill, line by line, and resulting adjustment. Id. Code “92” (Paid: no modification to information provided on the medical bill: payment made pursuant to workers’ compensation reimbursement manual for hospitals) was used because it is generally on all hospital bills. Id. Code “93” (Paid: no modification to information provided on the medical bill: payment made pursuant to written contractual arrangement) was used because Zenith had a contract with Coventry, and Coventry had an agreement with East Florida and Lawnwood. The Department has not adopted a rule establishing an EOBR code (or similar descriptive explanation) to be used by a carrier when the carrier identifies a bill or charge from a hospital that the carrier deems to be so excessively high so as to be an unreasonable basis for reimbursement under the Florida Worker’s Compensation Law. (Jt. Stip. Fact, ¶ 8). In other words, there is no code in rule 69L-7.740 for disputing a line item as being “unreasonable” or “too high.” Based on the repriced and adjusted bill, Zenith reimbursed Lawnwood $31,844.70 for the medical services provided. (Jt. Stip. Fact, ¶ 40). This amount was approximately three times the OPTUM360 amount of $11,173.81. When asked how Zenith made the decision to give three times the OPTUM360 amount, Ms. Brodie explained: We didn’t take the [OPTUM360] Medicare payment or even 120 or 140 percent of Medicare, which we thought was more than fair. . . . So because Florida -- I don't want to say they're problematic, but Florida bills, we're seeing such an increase in the amount of billed charges and we're seeing a lot of disputes when we don't pay to the penny of what the expected amount is, that we were trying to go above and beyond and try to make our payment more palatable, I guess, to the provider. So we wanted to be more than generous, so we came up with three times Medicare. Catherine Trotter (a Parallon employee) Parallon filed a request for reconsideration of the EOBR with Zenith after Lawnwood had reviewed it and determined $31,844.70 was insufficient. On April 18, 2016, Parallon, on behalf of Lawnwood, filed a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement dispute with the Department challenging the EOBR and demanding additional payment. Based on Ms. Joy’s testimony, Zenith did not contest the medical necessity of the services provided by Lawnwood, nor was there evidence Zenith claimed overutilization (the appropriateness of the level and quality of health care provided to the patient). Rather, Zenith claimed, and still claims in these proceedings, it did not pay the billed amount because the individual charges were unreasonable. Contract Provisions Zenith and Parallon, on behalf of Lawnwood, agree that a reimbursement contract applies to this dispute. (Jt. Stip. Fact, ¶ 35). The Department also based the Third Determination on the contract provisions. The parties disagree, however, as to what contract provisions apply and how they should be applied. At the hearing, the parties also disputed whether the Department was provided with the applicable contractual provisions during the petition process. The undersigned need not determine who sent what to whom, because this is a de novo proceeding; and what matters is the evidence admitted at the hearing. See 120.57(1)(k), Fla. Stat.; Haines v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 983 So. 2d 602, 606 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). No contract directly between Zenith and Lawnwood was presented at the hearing. The following documents, however, establish the agreement between Coventry and Lawnwood: (1) Amendment to Model Facility Agreement executed January 20, 2015 (MFA Amendment); Appendix A, “Payment Rate” (Appendix A); and Attachment 1, “Participating Facility List (Attachment 1); and (4) Amendment to Model Facility Agreement between Lawnwood and Coventry (also known as First Health), effective October 1, 2006 (Lawnwood Amendment). Parallon’s legal manager testified the MFA Amendment, Appendix A, Attachment 1, and the Lawnwood Amendment were the only contract provisions relevant to the reimbursement determination. These documents set the rates for Coventry (and its network clients such as Zenith), but do not provide definitions or terms that may have been included in the original “Model Facility Agreement.” Nonetheless, the Lawnwood Amendment defines the “Workers’ Compensation Contract Rate” as follows: “the amount payable under the terms of this Contract shall be the lesser of the Contract rate or a 5% discount from the amount payable under hospital guidelines established under any state law or regulations pertaining to health care services rendered to occupationally ill/injured employees.” Therefore, to make a determination of how much is owed, findings must be made as to what is the “Contact rate,” and what is the amount payable under “any state law or regulations” governing workplace injuries (State rate). Relevant to determining the “Contract rate,” Paragraph 3 of the MFA Amendment provides the following under “Rates”: The current rate reflected on Appendix A to the Agreement shall be increased by 3% for inpatient dates of admission and/or outpatient dates of service occurring on and after October 1, 2014. Appendix A contains a table depicting inpatient rates for Lawnwood as “35% Discount from Hospital’s Total Billed Charges.” (emphasis added). Because the services were provided after October 2014, the 35 percent discount reduced by the three percent discount results in Lawnwood’s expected contractual reimbursement rate to be 68 percent of the “Hospital’s Total Billed Charges,” from any of Coventry’s clients, including Zenith. Thus, the applicable Contract rate is 68 percent of the total bill submitted by Lawnwood. Zenith disputes the meaning of “Hospital’s Total Billed Charges” and argues for application of a “reasonableness” standard to this term. In support of this assertion, Zenith offers the following documents which relate to the agreement between Zenith and Coventry: (1) the Workers’ Compensation Network Services Agreement effective November 1, 2008, (Network Agreement); (2) Supplement A to the Network Agreement, titled “Network Access” (Supplement A); and (3) the Sixth Amendment to the Network Agreement executed November 24, 2015 (6th Amendment). The Network Agreement, Supplement A, and 6th Amendment are heavily redacted. Regardless, it is clear these documents classify Zenith as a “client,” who pays Coventry for access to a discounted rate for medical services with a “Contract Provider.” The Contract Provider and Coventry have a separate “provider agreement” setting this discounted rate. Although, the terms “contract rates,” “fee,” and “provider fee schedule,” are all defined in the Network Agreement Coventry has with Zenith, the definitions or explanation of these terms are redacted. Thus, there is no evidence these terms apply to the Lawnwood bill or the rate established between Coventry and Lawnwood. Similarly, Supplement A defines “Bill” but is also redacted. Regardless, based on the inclusion of these sections in the Network Agreement and attachments, Zenith and Coventry knew how to define special terms. If they intended to give a special meaning to the term “Hospital’s Total Billed Charges,” they could have done so. Section 2.2 of the 6th Amendment states, “[Zenith] agrees that the Contract Rate shall be applied to bills received from [Lawnwood] and further agrees that no other rates . . . shall be applied to such bills.” (emphasis added). Again, without any evidence to the contrary, “bills received” applies to the Lawnwood bill. Although Zenith argues the remaining language in section 2.2 allows it to “modify, edit or otherwise dispute any bill,” this modification must be done pursuant to the contract and workers’ compensation laws and regulations. As stated before, the EOBR regulations do not contemplate adjustments to be based on the reasonableness or fairness of prices or charges. More importantly, there is no basis in the contract provisions or state law and regulations allowing Zenith to reimburse Lawnwood in the amount of three times the OPTUM360 amount. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the undersigned also cannot infer this as a basis for modification of the reimbursement amount. Zenith also cites to section 2.6 of Supplement A to justify its repricing based on the OPTUM360 results and other industry-used benchmark comparison data. That section, titled “Benchmarking Database,” states, “In the event [Zenith] . . . performs a bill review or repricing function on [Lawnwood’s] bills, Zenith shall . . . update at least twice annually and utilize a nationally accepted charge-benchmarking database to determine the proper percentile of charges in the applicable zip code as approved by Coventry and Client.” Granted this section contemplates that benchmark databases can be used by Zenith in repricing bills, but it speaks to the proper percentile of charges, not the reasonableness of the underlying prices or charges. There was no evidence Coventry approved a “proper percentile of charges” as required. The undersigned finds there is no language in the redacted versions of the Network Agreement, Supplement A, or 6th Amendment that changes Zenith’s requirement (as Coventry’s client) to pay the lesser of (1) 68 percent of the “Hospital’s Total Billed Charges” or (2) 5 percent less than the rate provided pursuant to applicable state laws and regulations. Finally, Zenith argues that the definition provided in a Coventry contract with an undisclosed health care provider, titled “Workers’ Compensation Product Addendum,” should be used to determine the meaning of the term “Hospital’s Total Billed Charges.” See Zenith’s PRO, p. 22-23 (“By implication, these are all in the same network and use the same contractual provisions.”). This document (Zenith’s Exhibit 39) provides definitions, if applicable, that could have been helpful in addressing Zenith’s arguments. For example, this document ties the amount owed by a Coventry client to an “allowable amount” and “eligible bill charges.” There is no evidence, however, that Zenith’s Exhibit 39 was executed by Lawnwood (or East Florida), or that the provisions in this document were part of any agreement between Coventry and Lawnwood, or Coventry and Zenith. As such, the undersigned finds it is not applicable to these proceedings. Applying the Contract rate--68 percent of the “Hospital’s Total Billed Charges” indicated in the Network Agreement and attachments--to the Lawnwood bill would require Zenith to provide a total amount of $110,859.24, or an additional amount of $79,014.54. The Workers’ Compensation System The analysis does not stop there. The next step is to determine how much would be owed at “a 5% discount from the amount payable under hospital guidelines established under any state law or regulation pertaining to health care services rendered to occupationally ill/injured employees.” The undersigned finds this provision refers to the laws and regulations under Florida’s workers’ compensation system set forth in chapter 440 and the Department’s rules. In making the determination decisions in this case, the Department used the Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2014 Edition, and incorporated by reference in rule 69L-7.501 (HRM). The HRM generally provides for reimbursement based on either a per diem fee or the amount agreed upon by contract between the carrier and medical services provider. Under the section titled “Reported Charges,” the HRM provides: “charges for hospital inpatient services shall be reimbursed according to the Per Diem Fee Schedule provided in this chapter or according to a mutually agreed upon contract reimbursement agreement between the hospital and the insurer.” HRM at 15. “Per Diem” is defined as “a reimbursement allowance based on a fixed rate per calendar day which is inclusive of all services rather than on a charge by charge basis.” HRM at 35. In certain circumstances when provider bills are in excess of $59,891.34, a per diem rate is not used. Rather, the HRM provides that the reimbursement amount is calculated using a percentage methodology of 75 percent of the billed charges. This “Stop-Loss Reimbursement” is defined as “a reimbursement methodology based on billed charges once reaching a specified amount that is used in place of, and not in addition to, per diem reimbursement for an inpatient admission to an acute care hospital or a trauma center.” HRM at 17 and 35 (emphasis added). As explained below, the Stop-Loss methodology conflicts with section 440.13(12)(a), which specifically provides for establishment of a maximum reimbursement amount (MRA) based on a per diem rate for inpatient hospital care.5/ Applying the State rate--the per diem rate set forth in the HRM--Lawnwood would receive $3,850.33 per day, except for the day of discharge, which equals $11,550.99. HRM at 16. Applying the five percent discount, as set forth in the Lawnwood Amendment, to the $11,550.99 amount, the total amount payable by Zenith to Lawnwood equals $10,973.44. Because the State rate is less than the amount calculated using the Contract rate, the undersigned finds Zenith owed Lawnwood a total reimbursement amount of $10,973.44, which is less than the $31,844.70 already paid by Zenith.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order dismissing the petition of Lawnwood Regional Medical Center for resolution of a reimbursement dispute. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 8th day of May, 2019.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, at all times pertinent hereto was an employee of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with administering the group self-insurance health insurance program and other insurance programs such as life insurance and is the agency charged with accepting or rejecting applications for coverage under those programs, such as the application at issue. On January 11, 1980 the Petitioner commenced employment with the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as a District Intake Counselor in District eleven of the Department. Shortly after commencing employment the Petitioner attended an orientation meeting during which all insurance benefits and other benefits available for state employees were explained. Ernestine Thurston, the HRS employee who conducted the orientation session on January 11, 1980 informed all employees present at that orientation meeting, including the Petitioner, of the available benefits and the means by which they were to avail themselves by proper application, of those benefits, including the fact that the Petitioner had thirty days to enroll in the State Group Health Insurance Program without the necessity of obtaining medical approval for insurability. A second orientation meeting was held during which insurance benefits were explained for a second time to the employees whose names were depicted on the recruitment log, which names include the Petitioner 's. The Petitioner was present at both orientation sessions. At the first orientation session on January 11, 1980 the Petitioner received an HRS Employee Handbook which included the following language concerning insurance benefits: "Employees may enroll within 30 days of date of employment without evidence of insurability. "Application at a later date requires proof of insurability. Consult your supervisor, personnel manager, or district/central personnel office for additional information." The Petitioner admitted that she signed a receipt on January 11, 1980 acknowledging receipt of a complete copy of that Employee Handbook and which receipt included the following language: "I understand that it is my responsibility to review the pamphlet in detail and request any clarification needed from my supervisor or personnel office." Petitioner conceded that she did not read the pamphlet or handbook, but instead put it in her desk drawer at her office. On January 14, 1980, knowing of the need to apply for insurance benefits within 30 or 31 days of her employment during the open enrollment period, the Petitioner applied for various insurance -overages and submitted the pertinent enrollment forms through her District 11 personnel office. She applied for and received State Supplemental Health Insurance coverage through the Gulf Life Insurance Company (then called the "20/20" plan). This supplemental health insurance coverage was designed to complement the overall state group health insurance program or plan. The Petitioner at that time was covered under the overall state group health insurance plan (The Plan) through her husband's family coverage since he was an employee covered under that plan at the time. The Petitioner also timely applied for and received coverage under the state life insurance program as well. The Petitioner did not submit a new enrollee form requesting to participate in the State of Florida Employee's Group Health Self Insurance Plan within 31 calendar days of January 11, 1980. The Hearing Officer has considered the Petitioner's testimony as well as that of Ms. Thurston and the other evidence surrounding the circumstances of her initial employment, the explanation of insurance coverage benefits, including the time limit for the open enrollment without medical approval which the Petitioner did not avail herself of insofar as the group health self-insurance plan is concerned. The Petitioner did not apply for the overall group health self-insurance plan because she was already covered under that plan through her husband's coverage and not because, as Petitioner maintains, that it was never explained that she had 30, or actually 31, calendar days from January 11, 1980 to apply for that plan. Indeed it was explained to her as Ms. Thurston established and Respondent admits receiving the handbook further explaining the time limit to apply for that coverage without medical approval. She signed a receipt acknowledging her responsibility to read that pamphlet or manual and ask for clarification, if needed, concerning coverage benefits and she admitted that she did not read it. Thus it is found that at the time of her initial employment all pertinent insurance benefits and entitlements were explained to the Petitioner both verbally and in writing and she failed to avail herself of the automatic coverage provision referenced above in a timely way, for the reason stated above. In any event, on July 28, 1980 the Petitioner elected to submit a new enrollee form which was submitted with a medical statement form requesting participation in the State Plan. After correspondence with the State Plan administrator requesting additional medical information, on October 22, 1980 the Department of Administration, by letter, advised the Petitioner that she had not been approved by the plan administrator and she was denied coverage for medical reasons. Accordingly, on October 24, 1980 the Petitioner enrolled in the South Florida Group Health, Inc. Plan which is a health maintenance organization plan (HMO) and she was allowed enrollment in that plan without regard to her current medical condition. The Petitioner remained enrolled in the HMO and requested and was granted leave of absence without pay from her employment position commencing May 29, 1981. Her employing agency advised her that it was her individual responsibility to forward premium payments for the HMO health insurance premiums as well as the state life insurance coverage herself. In other words, she was to pay by cash or her own personal check for this coverage during the time she was not being paid by the state, that is, the premiums for that coverage were not being payroll deducted because she was temporarily off the payroll. Her employment with the State did not lapse during this period commencing May 29, 1981, rather she remained employed, but was on leave without- pay status. The Petitioner knew of her responsibility to pay the premiums for the HMO coverage and the state life insurance coverage itself during the period she was on leave of absence without pay as evidenced by the check she and her husband submitted in June 1981 to pay the premiums on her state life insurance coverage. The Petitioner and her husband moved from Miami to Fort Myers during early June 1981 and the Petitioner remained on leave of absence without pay. When her husband changed employment and moved to the Fort Myers area in June 1981 the Petitioner was a covered dependent under the health insurance coverage available to her husband through his new employment. I n August 1981 the South Florida Group Health, Inc., the HMO in the Miami are of which Petitioner was a member, terminated the Petitioner's health insurance coverage effective August 1, 1981 due to the Petitioner's failure to pay the premiums for that coverage. Shortly thereafter the Petitioner interviewed with personnel officials of HRS in District 8 in Fort Myers and obtained an employment position as a district intake counselor for District 8. She became an active payroll employee of HRS in District 8 by transfer in August 1981. Before the effective date of her transfer the Petitioner was interviewed by Judy Graham, an HRS employee assigned to process her transfer from her former active employment in District 11 in Miami. The Petitioner failed to advise Judy Graham at the time of the interview of her HMO coverage, merely inquiring of Ms. Graham concerning the details of continuation of her state life insurance coverage and concerning her credit union membership. Thereafter, more than 31 calendar days after the effective date of her transfer, (August 24, 1981), indeed, in excess of two years later, the Petitioner completed a new enrollee form again and applied for the state employee's group self- insurance plan benefits. The Department of Administration denied the Petitioner participation upon the determination that she was not medically approvable for insurability by the Plan's claims administrator, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. In any event, the Petitioner's continuous employment with the state and with HRS had never lapsed since she was initially hired January 11, 1980. She was merely on inactive/leave-without-pay status as a state employee from May 29, 1981 until August 24, 1981, as that relates to any right to a second 31-day open enrollment period.
Recommendation Having considered 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 a final order be entered by the Department of Administration denying the Petitioner's requested enrollment in the State Group Health Insurance Plan without medical approval. DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1985. APPENDIX The following specific rulings are made on the Proposed Findings of Facts submitted by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted, but subordinate and not material to disposition of the issues at bar. Accepted, but subordinate and not material to disposition of the issues at bar. Accepted, but subordinate and not material to disposition of the material issues at bar. Rejected as not being in accordance with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence adduced. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not being in accordance with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence adduced. Accepted, but this Proposed Finding of Fact in itself is not dispositive of the material issues of fact and law resolved herein. Accepted. Rejected as not in accordance with the competent, substantial, credible evidence and testimony adduced. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Facts The Respondent failed to number its Proposed Findings of. Fact, therefore its Proposed-Findings of Fact will be specifically ruled upon in the order the various paragraphs containing its Proposed Findings of Fact were presented. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Gilda Lambert Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Curtright C. Truitt, Esq. Post Office Box 2706 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902 Richard L. Kopel, Esq. Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioners’ Interim Rate Request (IRR) for an increase should be granted.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the agency of state government responsible for the implementation and administration of the Medicaid Program in the State of Florida. AHCA is authorized to audit Medicaid Cost Reports submitted by Medicaid Providers participating in the Medicaid Program. Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud are licensed nursing homes in Florida that participate in the Medicaid Program as institutional Medicaid Providers. On May 23, 2007, Avante at Jacksonville entered into a settlement agreement with the representative of the estate of one of its former residents, D. P. The settlement agreement provided, among other things, that Avante at Jacksonville would pay $350,000.00 as settlement for all claims. Avante at Jacksonville paid the personal representative the sum of $350,000.00. By letter dated July 16, 2007, Avante at Jacksonville requested an IRR effective August 1, 2007, pursuant to the Plan Section IV J.2., for additional costs incurred from self-insured losses as a result of paying the $350,000.00 to settle the lawsuit. Avante at Jacksonville submitted supporting documentation, including a copy of the settlement agreement, and indicated, among other things, that the costs exceeded $5,000.00 and that the increase in cost was projected at $2.77/day, exceeding one percent of the current Medicaid per diem rate. At all times pertinent hereto, the policy held by Avante at Jacksonville was a commercial general and professional liability insurance policy. The policy had $10,000.00 per occurrence and $50,627.00 general aggregate liability limits. The policy was a typical insurance policy representative of what other facilities in the nursing home industry purchased in Florida. The policy limits were typical limits in the nursing home industry in Florida. By letter dated July 18, 2007, AHCA denied the IRR on the basis that the IRR failed to satisfy the requirements of Section IV J. of the Plan, necessary and proper for granting the request. Avante at Jacksonville contested the denial and timely requested a hearing. Subsequently, Avante at Jacksonville became concerned that, perhaps, the incorrect provision of the Plan had been cited in its IRR. As a result, a second IRR was submitted for the same costs. By letter dated October 22, 2007, Avante at Jacksonville made a second request for an IRR, this time pursuant to the Plan Section IV J.3., for the same additional costs incurred from the self-insured losses as a result of paying the $350,000.00 settlement. The same supporting documentation was included. Avante at Jacksonville was of the opinion that the Plan Section IV J.3. specifically dealt with the costs of general and professional liability insurance. By letter dated October 30, 2007, AHCA denied the second request for an IRR, indicating that the first request was denied based on “all sub-sections of Section IV J of the Plan”; that the second request failed to satisfy the requirements of the Plan Section IV J.3. and all sections and sub-sections of the Plan “necessary and proper for granting [the] request.” Avante at Jacksonville contested the denial and timely requested a hearing. On October 19, 2007, Avante at St. Cloud entered a settlement agreement with the personal representative of the estate of one of its former residents, G. M. The settlement agreement provided, among other things, that Avante at St. Cloud would pay $90,000.00 as settlement for all claims. Avante at St. Cloud paid the personal representative the sum of $90,000.00. By letter dated December 10, 2007, Avante at St. Cloud requested an IRR effective November 1, 2007, pursuant to the Plan Section IV J, for additional costs incurred as a result of paying the $90,000.00 to settle the lawsuit. Avante at St. Cloud submitted supporting documentation, including a copy of the settlement agreement, and indicated, among other things, that the increase in cost was projected at $2.02/day, exceeding one percent of the current Medicaid per diem rate. At all times pertinent hereto, the policy held by Avante at St. Cloud was a commercial general and professional liability insurance policy. The policy had $10,000.00 per occurrence and $50,000.00 general aggregate liability limits. The policy was a typical insurance policy representative of what other facilities in the nursing home industry purchased in Florida. The policy limits were typical limits in the nursing home industry in Florida. By letter dated December 12, 2007, AHCA denied the IRR on the basis that the IRR failed to satisfy the requirements of “Section IV J of the Plan necessary and proper for granting [the] request.” Avante at St. Cloud contested the denial and timely requested a hearing. Insurance Policies and the Nursing Home Industry in Florida Typically, nursing homes in Florida carry low limit general and professional liability insurance policies. The premiums of the policies exceed the policy limits. For example, the premium for a policy of Avante at Jacksonville to cover the $350,000.00 settlement would have been approximately $425,000.00 and for a policy of Avante at St. Cloud to cover the $90,000.00 settlement would have been approximately $200,000.00. Also, the policies have a funded reserve feature wherein, if the reserve is depleted through the payment of a claim, the nursing home is required to recapitalize the reserve or purchase a new policy. That is, if a policy paid a settlement up to the policy limits, the nursing home would have to recapitalize the policy for the amount of the claim paid under the policy and would have to fund the loss, which is the amount in excess of the policy limits, out-of-pocket. Florida’s Medicaid Reimbursement Plan for Nursing Homes The applicable version of the Plan is Version XXXI. AHCA has incorporated the Plan in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-6.010. AHCA uses the Plan in conjunction with the Provider Reimbursement Manual (CMS-PUB.15-1)3 to calculate reimbursement rates of nursing homes and long-term care facilities. The calculation of reimbursement rates uses a cost- based, prospective methodology, using the prior year’s costs to establish the current period per diem rates. Inflation factors, target ceilings, and limitations are applied to reach a per patient, per day per diem rate that is specific to each nursing home. Reimbursement rates for nursing homes and long-term care facilities are typically set semi-annually, effective on January 1 and July 1 of each year. The most recent Medicaid cost report is used to calculate a facility’s reimbursement rate and consists of various components, including operating costs, the direct patient care costs, the indirect patient care costs, and property costs. The Plan allows for the immediate inclusion of costs in the per diem rate to Medicaid Providers under very limited circumstances through the IRR process. The interim rate’s purpose is to compensate for the shortfalls of a prospective reimbursement system and to allow a Medicaid Provider to increase its rate for sudden, unforeseen, dramatic costs beyond the Provider’s control that are of an on-going nature. Importantly, the interim rate change adjusts the Medicaid Provider’s individual target rate ceiling to allow those costs to flow ultimately through to the per diem paid, which increases the amount of the Provider’s overall reimbursement. In order for a cost to qualify under an interim rate request, the cost must be an allowable cost and meet the criteria of Section IV J of the Plan. The Plan provides in pertinent part: IV. Standards * * * J. The following provisions apply to interim changes in component reimbursement rates, other than through the routine semi- annual rate setting process. * * * Interim rate changes reflecting increased costs occurring as a result of patient or operating changes shall be considered only if such changes were made to comply with existing State or Federal rules, laws, or standards, and if the change in cost to the provider is at least $5000 and would cause a change of 1 percent or more in the provider’s current total per diem rate. If new State or Federal laws, rules, regulations, licensure and certification requirements, or new interpretations of existing laws, rules, regulations, or licensure and certification requirements require providers to make changes that result in increased or decreased patient care, operating, or capital costs, requests for component interim rates shall be considered for each provider based on the budget submitted by the provider. All providers’ budgets submitted shall be reviewed by the Agency [AHCA] and shall be the basis for establishing reasonable cost parameters. In cases where new State or Federal requirements are imposed that affect all providers, appropriate adjustments shall be made to the class ceilings to account for changes in costs caused by the new requirements effective as of the date of the new requirements or implementation of the new requirements, whichever is later. Interim rate adjustments shall be granted to reflect increases in the cost of general or professional liability insurance for nursing homes if the change in cost to the provider is at least $5000 and would cause change of 1 percent or more in the provider’s current total per diem. CMS-PUB.15-1 provides in pertinent part: 2160. Losses Arising From Other Than Sale of Assets A. General.—A provider participating in the Medicare program is expected to follow sound and prudent management practices, including the maintenance of an adequate insurance program to protect itself against likely losses, particularly losses so great that the provider’s financial stability would be threatened. Where a provider chooses not to maintain adequate insurance protection against such losses, through the purchase of insurance, the maintenance of a self- insurance program described in §2161B, or other alternative programs described in §2162, it cannot expect the Medicare program to indemnify it for its failure to do so. Where a provider chooses not to file a claim for losses covered by insurance, the costs incurred by the provider as a result of such losses may not be included in allowable costs. * * * 2160.2 Liability Losses.—Liability damages paid by the provider, either imposed by law or assumed by contract, which should reasonably have been covered by liability insurance, are not allowable. Insurance against a provider’s liability for such payments to others would include, for example, automobile liability insurance; professional liability (malpractice, negligence, etc.); owners, landlord and tenants liability; and workers’ compensation. Any settlement negotiated by the provider or award resulting from a court or jury decision of damages paid by the provider in excess of the limits of the provider’s policy, as well as the reasonable cost of any legal assistance connected with the settlement or award are includable in allowable costs, provided the provider submits evidence to the satisfaction of the intermediary that the insurance coverage carried by the provider at the time of the loss reflected the decision of prudent management. Also, the reasonable cost of insurance protection, as well as any losses incurred because of the application of the customary deductible feature of the policy, are includable in allowable costs. As to whether a cost is allowable, the authority to which AHCA would look is first to the Plan, then to CMS-PUB.15- 1, and then to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). As to reimbursement issues, AHCA would look to the same sources in the same order for the answer. The insurance liability limit levels maintained by Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud reflect sound and prudent management practices. Claims that resulted in the settlements of Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud, i.e., wrongful death and/or negligence, are the type of claims covered under the general and professional liability policies carried by Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud. Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud both had a general and professional liability insurance policy in full force and effect at the time the wrongful death and/or negligence claims were made that resulted in the settlement agreements. Neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud filed a claim with their insurance carrier, even though they could have, for the liability losses incurred as a result of the settlements. Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud both chose not to file a claim with their respective insurance carrier for the liability losses incurred as a result of the settlements. AHCA did not look beyond the Plan in making its determination that neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud should be granted an IRR. Wesley Hagler, AHCA’s Regulatory Analyst Supervisor, testified as an expert in Medicaid cost reimbursement. He testified that settlement agreements are a one time cost and are not considered on-going operating costs for purposes of Section IV J.2. of the Plan. Mr. Hagler’s testimony is found to be credible. Mr. Hagler testified that settlement agreements and defense costs are not considered general and professional liability insurance for purposes of Section IV J.3. of the Plan. To the contrary, Stanley William Swindling, Jr., an expert in health care accounting and Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, testified that general and professional liability insurance costs include premiums, settlements, losses, co-insurance, deductibles, and defense costs. Mr. Swindling’s testimony is found to be more credible than Mr. Hagler’s testimony, and, therefore, a finding of fact is made that general and professional liability insurance costs include premiums, settlements, losses, co-insurance, deductibles, and defense costs.4 Neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud submitted any documentation with their IRRs to indicate a specific law, statute, or rule, either state or federal, with which they were required to comply, resulted in an increase in costs. Neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud experienced an increase in the premiums for the general and professional liability insurance policies. Neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud submitted documentation with its IRRs to indicate that the premiums of its general and professional liability insurance increased. Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud could only meet the $5,000.00 threshold and the one percent increase in total per diem under the Plan, Sections IV J.2. or J.3. by basing its calculations on the settlement costs. Looking to the Plan in conjunction with CMS-PUB.15-1 to determine reimbursement costs, CMS-PUB.15-1 at Section 2160A provides generally that, when a provider chooses not to file a claim for losses covered by insurance, the costs incurred by the provider, as a result of such losses, are not allowable costs; however, Section 2160.2 specifically includes settlement dollars in excess of the limits of the policy as allowable costs, provided the evidence submitted by the provider to the intermediary (AHCA) shows to the satisfaction of the intermediary that the insurance coverage at the time of the loss reflected the decision of prudent management. The policy coverage for Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud set the policy limits for each facility at $10,000.00 for each occurrence. Applying the specific section addressing settlement negotiations, the loss covered by insurance would have been $10,000.00 for each facility and the losses in excess of the policy limits--$340,000.00 for Avante at Jacksonville and $80,000.00 for Avante at St. Cloud—would have been allowable costs.
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 denying the interim rate requests for an increase for Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 2008. 1/ The corrected case-style.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Herbert Goloff, D.C., is a chiropractor licensed to practice in the State of Florida. From March 10, 1988, through September 3, 1991, Dr. Goloff treated Ruth Waddle, a Workers' Compensation patient, for lumbar myofascitis. Lumbar myofascitis is an inflammation of the muscle and the fascia in the lumbar spine. Lumbar myofascitis is indicated by the following objective findings: recurrent spasms, limitation of motion, tender nodules, trigger point tenderness in the muscles, and taut or sensitive skin. On June 14, 1988, the Respondent placed Ruth Waddle at maximum medical improvement (MMI). The Respondent treated Ruth Waddle 14 times before placing her at MMI. The Respondent treated Ruth Waddle a total of 171 times after MMI. The Respondent is required to maintain documentation substantiating the treatment and services he rendered to Ruth Waddle in order to receive reimbursement for those services. The Respondent is required to perform an initial history, make a diagnosis, and develop a plan of care and document his subjective and objective findings in his records. The Respondent is also required to keep notes reflecting his subjective and objective findings, his appraisal or assessment and his plan of action (SOAP notes) for the patient Ruth Waddle, in order to substantiate and justify that the medical treatment and services he renders are medically necessary. If a health care provider cannot document that this treatment and services are medically necessary, he is not entitled to receive reimbursement for his services. The Respondent's records indicate that there was unscheduled ongoing care of the patient after June 14, 1988. Whenever the patient was in pain she would come in to the Respondent's Office and ask for a treatment. Respondent was not practicing full time in 1988. The patient seldom scheduled an appointment. She frequently came in on a Tuesday, a day she knew that Respondent had office hours. The patient would describe her symptoms to Respondent and he would perform various therapies, including mild adjustments. Respondent would make minimum entries in the patient's progress notes. Respondent's treatment of the patient Ruth Waddle, after reaching MMI, for the temporary relief of pain was palliative care. The Respondent's records indicate that there was inadequate testing of the patient Ruth Waddle to substantiate the medical necessity of treatment after June 14, 1988. The Respondent's records do not contain a plan of care or treatment for Ruth Waddle. The Respondents records do not contain an initial history for Ruth Waddle. The Respondents records do not contain an evaluation of Ruth Waddle's physical condition at the time of MMI relative to muscle spasms and range of motion, as well as other neurological and orthopedic tests. Respondent failed to maintain SOAP notes for the patient Ruth Waddle. The Respondent's records do not contain objective medical findings to substantiate the medical necessity of services rendered to Ruth Waddle after June 14, 1988. The Respondent's records do not substantiate the medical necessity of the frequency and duration of the treatment provided to Ruth Waddle after June 14, 1988.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be determined to have failed to substantiate the treatment of Ruth Waddle after June 14, 1988. The Respondent be ordered to return the sum of $7,354.68 to the American States Insurance Company for the fees that the Respondent collected in treating Ruth Waddle after June 14, 1988, when the patient reached MMI. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-4546 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-14. Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 2, 5(a), 5(b) (in part). Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence: paragraph 4, 5(b) (in part), 5(c). COPIES FURNISHED: Michael G. Moore, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 William J. McCabe, Esquire Shepherd, McCabe & Cooley 1450 West S.R. 434, Suite 200 Longwood, Florida 32750 Shirley Gooding, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Cecilia Renn, Esquire Chief Legal Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
