The Issue The issue is whether Respondent failed to maintain a service plan for each of four residents, in violation of the Florida Medicaid Assistive Care Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook. If so, an additional issue is the sanctions that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates an assisted living facility known as Izquierdo Home Care I. At all material times, Respondent was enrolled in the Medicaid program as a provider authorized to supply assistive living services to Medicaid recipients at Izquierdo Home Care I. At all material times, Respondent was subject to the Florida Medicaid Assistive Care Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook. The handbook imposed upon Respondent the duty to develop a service plan for each Medicaid recipient not less often than annually. On March 27, 2012, Petitioner's inspector conducted a site visit of Izquierdo Home Care I. At the time of the site visit, the facility had six beds, but only four residents. According to a letter from Petitioner dated March 27, 2012, and delivered to Respondent's representative at the time of the inspection, the following four residents were Medicaid recipients: E. C., R. R., J. H., and A. R. However, according to the questionnaire completed by Respondent's representative at the time of the inspection, only two of the four current residents were Medicaid recipients, although the questionnaire does not identify these residents. In fact, A. R. had been discharged from Izquierdo Home Care I in September 2011. At the hearing, Petitioner's inspector confirmed that Respondent had not billed Medicaid for services for A. R. after the date of discharge. The second resident whose Medicaid status is in question was identified, in Respondent's proposed recommended order, as E. C. Respondent contends in its proposed recommended order that E. C. was not receiving Medicaid at the time of the inspection. If the Proposed Recommended Order were the only notice to Petitioner of Respondent's claim that a second resident was not a Medicaid recipient, the Administrative Law Judge would ignore this assertion because it is not evidence, and, as a defense, it was raised too late. However, the questionnaire, which was admitted as one of Petitioner's exhibits, is evidence that two of the four residents were not receiving Medicaid at the time of the inspection. In assessing the evidentiary record in terms of whether it establishes a third Medicaid recipient, the Administrative Law Judge notes: a) Petitioner has alleged a violation concerning A. R., even though A. R. was no longer a Medicaid recipient at the time of the inspection; b) at hearing, Petitioner's inspector was readily able to read the "query" to confirm that Respondent had not submitted a Medicaid billing on account of A. R. after September 2011 (Transcript 49); and c) as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, Petitioner bears the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. Under these circumstances, Petitioner has proved only that two residents of the facility were Medicaid recipients at the time of the inspection. There is no dispute that current service plans for two Medicaid recipients did not exist at the time of the March 2012 inspection.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order imposing a fine of $2000 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffries H. Duvall, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Executive Center, Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Julia Arrendell, Qualified Representative 13899 Biscayne Boulevard North Miami Beach, Florida 33181 Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Executive Center, Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Stuart Williams, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Executive Center, Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Executive Center, Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner must reimburse Respondent for payments totaling $1,140,763.88 that Petitioner received from the Medicaid Program in compensation for the provision of prescription drugs between late-August and November of 1998. Respondent contends that Petitioner is not entitled to retain the payments in question because Petitioner allegedly has failed to demonstrate that it had available during the pertinent period a sufficient quantity of the prescription drugs in question.
Findings Of Fact The parties' Joint Stipulation of Facts and the evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Parties The Agency for Health Care Administration (the “Agency”) is responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program. As one of its duties, the Agency must recover "overpayments . . . as appropriate," the term "overpayment" being statutorily defined to mean "any amount that is not authorized to be paid by the Medicaid program whether paid as a result of inaccurate or improper cost reporting, improper claiming, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse, or mistake." See Section 409.913(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Palm Beach Pharmacy, Inc. (“PBPI”), d/b/a Eddie’s Drug (“Eddie’s”) was, at all times material hereto, a duly contracted Medicaid provider, having entered into a Medicaid Provider Agreement with the Agency and been assigned a Medicaid Provider Number: 106343000. Eddie’s is a Florida licensed pharmacy.1 As an enrolled Medicaid provider, Eddie’s is authorized to dispense drugs and supplies to Medicaid recipients. In return, Eddie’s has agreed to comply with all governing statutes, rules, and policies, including those policies set forth in the Florida Medicaid Prescribed Drug Services Coverage, Limitations and Reimbursement Handbook (the “Handbook”). The Agency, which prepared the Handbook and furnishes it to Medicaid providers, has incorporated the Handbook by reference into Rule 59G-4.250(2), Florida Administrative Code. PBPI, which owned and operated a number of pharmacies (including Eddie’s), maintained its corporate headquarters in West Palm Beach, Florida. Eddie’s was located in Miami, Florida. On July 1, 1998, PBPI acquired a drug store known as Jay’s Drugs (“Jay’s”). Jay’s was located in Miami, Florida, across the street from Eddie’s. Thus, before both stores came under common ownership, they had been competitors. This case arises out of the Agency's attempt to recover alleged overpayments on Medicaid claims for which Eddie’s was paid several years ago. The "audit period" that is the subject of the Agency's recoupment effort is April 1, 1998 to July 31, 1999, although the actual period in controversy is much shorter. From July 1, 1998, until the end of the audit period, PBPI owned and operated both Eddie’s and Jay’s. The Underlying Facts The transactions at the heart of this case occurred between late-August and November of 1998, during which period (the “Focal Period”) Medicaid reimbursed Eddie’s more than $1 million for prescription drugs including Neupogen and Epogen/Procrit (collectively, the “Drugs”). The Drugs are used to treat AIDS patients and persons infected with HIV. Prior to the Focal Period, Eddie’s had not dispensed $1 million worth of the Drugs——or any figure approaching that amount——in three or four months’ time. The reason for the dramatic spike in Eddie’s business is that Eddie’s was dispensing the Drugs to customers of Jay’s pursuant to an arrangement designed to manipulate PBPI’s contractual obligations to the former owner of Jay’s under the purchase and sale agreement by which PBPI had acquired Jay’s. Essentially, the arrangement was this. Jay’s was dispensing the Drugs to a large number (approximately 150) of Medicaid beneficiaries who were receiving treatment at a nearby clinic. Because the Drugs were administered to the patients via intravenous infusion, the clinic typically obtained the Drugs from Jay’s in bulk. To fill these prescriptions, Jay’s ordered the Drugs from a wholesale supplier, which usually delivered the Drugs to Jay’s the next day. At some point before the Focal Period, arrangements were made to have the clinic present its prescriptions for the Drugs to Eddie’s rather than Jay’s.2 The evidence does not show, exactly, how this was accomplished, but whatever the means, the clinic abruptly began bringing prescriptions for the Drugs to Eddie’s.3 This diversion of Jay’s’ business to Eddie’s was intended to deprive Jay’s of Medicaid reimbursements to which Jay’s’ former owner had access as a source of funds for paying down a note that PBPI had given for the purchase of Jay’s. By having Eddie’s dispense the Drugs and submit the Medicaid claims, Medicaid money flowed into Eddie’s’ bank account (rather than Jay’s’ bank account) and hence was not immediately available to the former owner of Jay’s to reduce PBPI’s debt. During the Focal Period, Eddie’s did not purchase the Drugs from a wholesaler but instead acquired them from Jay’s. The process by which this was accomplished involved a pharmacy technician named Wright, who was employed at Eddie’s, and a pharmacist named Shafor, who worked at Jay’s. Wright (at Eddie’s) accepted the prescriptions for the Drugs as the clinic brought them in Then, she called Shafor (at Jay’s) and told him the quantities needed to fill the prescriptions. Shafor ordered the Drugs from a wholesaler, which delivered them in bulk to Jay’s, usually the next day. Upon receiving the Drugs, Shafor personally delivered them to Wright, who, recall, was across the street at Eddie’s. Wright labeled and dispensed the Drugs. Eddie’s submitted a claim for the Drugs to Medicaid, and Medicaid paid Eddie’s. PBPI maintained separate accounting ledgers for Eddie’s and Jay’s, respectively. The company’s accountants recorded the subject transactions in these ledgers so that Jay’s——not Eddie’s——would “recognize” the sales of the Drugs. In a nutshell, this was done through “inter-company” transfers whereby all of the money that Eddie’s received from Medicaid for the Drugs was moved, on the books, into an account of Jay’s. In this way, any profit from the sales of the Drugs (the difference between the wholesale cost of the Drugs and the Medicaid reimbursement therefor, less overhead) was realized on Jay’s’ books.4 The Medicaid payments to Eddie’s that the Agency seeks to recoup were included in four remittance vouchers dated September 2, 1998; September 30, 1998; October 28, 1998; and November 25, 1998, respectively. The September 2 payment to Eddie’s totaled $287,205.52. Of this amount, $276,033.23 reimbursed Eddie’s for dispensing the Drugs. Eddie’s’ accounting ledger reflects that, as of September 30, 1998, the sum of $276,033.23 had been transferred from an account of Eddie’s to an account of Jay’s. The September 30 payment to Eddie’s totaled $439,175.77, of which $432,700.36 was paid in consideration of the Drugs. The October 28 Medicaid payment was $431,753.82, of which total the Drugs accounted for $424,202.76. Eddie’s’ accounting ledger reflects that, as of October 31, 1998, the sum of $870,929.59 (439,175.77 + 431,753.82) had been transferred from an account of Eddie’s to an account of Jay’s. The November 25 payment to Eddie’s totaled $407,088.00. Of this amount, $393,063.00 reimbursed Eddie’s for dispensing the Drugs. Eddie’s’ accounting ledger reflects that, as of November 30, 1998, the sum of $407,088.00 had been transferred from an account of Eddie’s to an account of Jay’s. The Agency’s Allegations On October 31, 2000, the Agency issued its Final Agency Audit Report (“Audit”) in which Eddie’s was alleged to have received $1,143,612.68 in overpayments relating to the Drugs. In the Audit, the Agency spelled out its theory of the case; indeed, the Audit is the only document in the record that does so. The Agency cited several statutory provisions. First, Section 409.913(7)(e), Florida Statutes, was referenced. This section states: When presenting a claim for payment under the Medicaid program, a provider has an affirmative duty to supervise the provision of, and be responsible for, goods and services claimed to have been provided, to supervise and be responsible for preparation and submission of the claim, and to present a claim that is true and accurate and that is for goods and services that: * * * (e) Are provided in accord with applicable provisions of all Medicaid rules, regulations, handbooks, and policies and in accordance with federal, state, and local law. Section 409.913(7)(e), Florida Statutes. The Agency did not allege (or prove), however, that Eddie’s had violated Section 409.913(7)(e), Florida Statutes.5 Put another way, the Agency did not plead or prove lack of supervision, submission of a false claim, or that the Drugs were not provided in accordance with applicable law. Next, the Agency cited Section 409.913(8), Florida Statutes, which provides: A Medicaid provider shall retain medical, professional, financial, and business records pertaining to services and goods furnished to a Medicaid recipient and billed to Medicaid for a period of 5 years after the date of furnishing such services or goods. The agency may investigate, review, or analyze such records, which must be made available during normal business hours. However, 24-hour notice must be provided if patient treatment would be disrupted. The provider is responsible for furnishing to the agency, and keeping the agency informed of the location of, the provider's Medicaid- related records. The authority of the agency to obtain Medicaid-related records from a provider is neither curtailed nor limited during a period of litigation between the agency and the provider. The Agency further alleged, as fact, that Eddie’s had failed, upon request, “to submit invoices from [its] suppliers to substantiate the availability of drugs that [were] billed to Medicaid” and thus had not “fully substantiated such availability.” The Agency, however, did not invoke any of the available remedial provisions as authority to impose a sanction for this alleged failure to turn over Medicaid-related records. See, e.g., Sections 409.913(14)(b), (c), and (d), Florida Statutes. The Agency cited Section 409.913(10), Florida Statutes, which authorizes the Agency to “require repayment for inappropriate, medically unnecessary, or excessive goods or services from the person furnishing them, the person under whose supervision they were furnished, or the person causing them to be furnished.” There was no allegation (or proof), however, that the Drugs which Eddie’s had purported to dispense (i.e. the Drugs for which it had submitted Medicaid claims) were “inappropriate, medically unnecessary, or excessive.” Thus, Eddie’s was not alleged (or shown) to have violated Section 409.913(10), Florida Statutes. Finally, the Agency relied upon Section 409.913(14)(n), Florida Statutes, which is the basis of the Agency’s legal theory. This section provides: The agency may seek any remedy provided by law, including, but not limited to, the remedies provided in subsections (12) and (15) and s. 812.035, if: * * * (n) The provider fails to demonstrate that it had available during a specific audit or review period sufficient quantities of goods, or sufficient time in the case of services, to support the provider's billings to the Medicaid program[.] The Agency contended, additionally, that “[b]illing Medicaid for drugs that have not been demonstrated as available for dispensing is a violation of the Medicaid laws and regulations and has resulted in the finding that [Eddie’s] ha[s] been overpaid by the Medicaid program.” (Emphasis added). The Agency explained, “Medicaid payments that have been substantiated by documented inventory are assumed to be valid; and payments in excess of that amount are regarded to be invalid.” Thus, the Agency’s theory of recovery is that Eddie’s must forfeit “overpayments” arising from its failure to demonstrate the availability, in inventory, of a sufficient quantity of the Drugs for which claims were submitted, as required by Section 409.913(14)(n), Florida Statutes. After the Audit was issued, the Agency accepted a handwritten note regarding the transfer of a small quantity of Drugs from Jay’s to Eddie’s as sufficient to demonstrate the availability of such amount. This resulted in a slight reduction of the amount of the alleged overpayment, to $1,140,763.88. The Separate Audit of Jay’s The Agency conducted a separate audit of Jay’s, concerning which some evidence was introduced at hearing. Without getting into unnecessary detail, the audit of Jay’s revealed that Jay’s had purchased, during and around the Focal Period, a quantity of the Drugs that exceeded the number of units that Jay’s had billed to Medicaid. It was Eddie’s theory that this “excess inventory” of Jay’s matched, more or less, the alleged inventory shortfall at Eddie’s, thereby corroborating the testimony concerning the transfer of these Drugs from Jay’s to Eddie’s for dispensation. At hearing, the parties sharply disputed whether, in fact, Jay’s had transferred the Drugs to Eddie’s. The Agency, of course, maintained that such transfers were not properly documented; Eddie’s argued that the documents and other evidence, including testimony about the transactions in question, adequately demonstrated that the transfers had, in fact, occurred. There was no dispute, however, that if it were found that such transfers had occurred, and if, further, the documents (and other evidence) pertaining to the inventory of Jay’s were accepted as proof of the quantities of Drugs so transferred, then all but $176,078.30 worth of the Drugs could be accounted for. Thus, as counsel for Eddie’s conceded at hearing, the Agency is entitled to recoup some sum of money. The question is whether that sum is $1,140,763.88 or $176,078.30. Ultimate Factual Determination Based on all of the evidence in the record, including the deposition testimony received through the parties’ joint stipulation, it is determined that, more likely than not, Eddie’s had available during the Focal Period a sufficient quantity of the Drugs to support all but $176,078.30 worth of the claims in dispute.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency enter a final order requiring Eddie’s to repay the Agency the principal amount of $176,078.30. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 2002.
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to comply with several requirements set forth in the Florida Medicaid Assistive Care Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook, thereby incurring a $15,000 fine according to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G- 9.070(7)(e).
Findings Of Fact Embassy is an assisted living facility that provides assistive care services, and was enrolled as a provider in the Florida Medicaid program at all times pertinent to the instant case. AHCA is the state agency charged with the administration of the Medicaid program in Florida. Within AHCA is the Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity (MPI), whose duty is to ensure the integrity of the Medicaid program by conducting audits of claims and by investigating providers to ensure compliance with all requirements of the Medicaid program. At all relevant times, Embassy has been subject to a Medicaid Provider Agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, Embassy agreed to comply with all federal, state, and local laws, including rules, regulations, and statements of policy applicable to the Medicaid program. Embassy also agreed to comply with AHCA's Medicaid handbooks. The Medicaid Provider Agreement includes the requirement that providers keep, maintain, and make available in a systemic and orderly manner all medical and Medicaid-related records as AHCA requires. On December 6, 2011, AHCA conducted a site visit at Embassy's facility. In a letter dated February 8, 2012, Embassy was notified that a fine of $15,000 was being assessed. The letter read as follows: In accordance with Section 409.913, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Rule 59G-9.070, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), the Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), shall apply sanctions for violations of federal and state laws, including the failure to maintain a Resident Service Plan for Assistive Care Services within fifteen (15) days of a Resident Health Assessment for Assisted Living Facilities for Medicaid consumers P.A., D.B., D.D., R.E., M.G., F.G., P.N., K.T., E.V., and G.W., the failure to maintain a complete Resident Health Assessment for Assisted Living Facilities for Medicaid consumers D.B., M.G., and F.G., the failure to maintain a physician statement indicating that employee M.J.D. is free of communicable diseases, the failure to maintain current tuberculosis skin test results for employees M.J.D., E.J., and B.R., and failure to maintain current Level II background screening results for employees E.D., M.J.D., J.R., and B.R. A review of the recipient files revealed that service plans were missing in ten files. Service plans are required for each recipient, and they must be signed or provided within 15 days of the annual health assessment, or within 15 days of an assessment that causes a significant change in the recipient's condition. Embassy admitted at the final hearing that ten recipient files did not contain service plans. The documentation provided also did not contain a Level II Background Screening for four Embassy employees; these screenings must be conducted every five years. Embassy admitted that the required background screenings were conducted on December 16, 2011-- after the site visit, and after they had expired. Lastly, the documentation provided during the site visit did not contain tuberculosis screening results for three employees. Two of those employee files also did not contain the Level II Background Screenings as noted above; one employee file was only missing the tuberculosis screening. The Agency properly imposed sanctions for each of the fifteen violations of Medicaid policy; that is: ten recipient files that did not contain service plans, four employee files that did not contain a Level II background screening and therefore were not maintained properly for inspection, and one employee file that did not contain a tuberculosis screening. There is no evidence establishing that Embassy has been previously charged with, or been determined to have committed, any violation of Medicaid law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-9.070(7)(e), Respondent should be fined a total of $15,000 for 15 violations of Florida's Medicaid laws. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA E. VARN 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 31st day of January, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether the Agency’s Lowest Charge Rule as identified in the petition filed in this matter is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented as prohibited by section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes (2013).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, AHCA, is the Florida agency responsible for the administration of the Medicaid program in Florida and is the agency responsible for the adoption, implementation and enforcement of the Lowest Charge Rule at issue in this proceeding. Petitioner, LabCorp, provides medical testing and clinical diagnostic services used by hospitals, physicians, and other medical providers to diagnose and treat patients in Florida and nationwide. LabCorp is a Florida Medicaid provider. Quest operates commercial reference laboratories in Florida and nationwide, providing a range of clinical laboratory services to assist health care providers in diagnosing and treating disease and other health conditions. Quest is a Florida Medicaid provider. As Florida Medicaid providers, LabCorp and Quest are subject to the rules adopted by AHCA to administer the Medicaid program in Florida, including the Lowest Charge Rule. The Lowest Charge Rule substantially affects the amounts LabCorp and Quest are entitled to charge and are paid for Medicaid services under chapter 409, Florida Statutes, and the applicable Florida regulations and handbooks. LabCorp and Quest are substantially affected by the Lowest Charge Rule and therefore have standing to seek an administrative determination of its invalidity. This action challenges the validity of the Lowest Charge Rule, which is included in both the first sentence of rule 59G- 5.110(2), and in the Provider General Handbook at page 1-4. 10. Rule 59G-5.110(2), states: Charges for services or goods billed to the Medicaid program shall not exceed the provider’s lowest charge to any other third party payment source for the same or equivalent medical and allied care, goods, or services provided to person [sic] who are not Medicaid recipients. Any services or goods customarily provided free of charge to patients may not be billed to Medicaid when provided to Medicaid recipients. Any payment made by Medicaid for services or goods not furnished in accordance with these provisions is subject to recoupment and the agency may, in such instances, initiate other appropriate administrative or legal action. The Provider General Handbook, adopted pursuant to rule 59G-5.020, repeats the Lowest Charge Rule at page 1-4: What the Provider May Charge for Services The provider’s charges for services billed to Medicaid must not exceed the provider’s lowest charge to any other third party source for the same or equivalent medical and allied care, goods, or services provided to individuals who are not Medicaid recipients.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in Petitioner's letter of agency action dated March 9, 2012, and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, New Life was issued individual Medicaid provider number 140680900. At all times material hereto, New Life was enrolled as an assisted living facility. At all times material hereto, New Life had a valid Medicaid Provider Agreement with AHCA (Agreement). Under the Agreement, New Life was authorized to provide assistive living services to Medicaid recipients. The Florida Medicaid Assistive Care Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook, effective July 2009, hereinafter Handbook, provides, among other things, requirements of Medicaid home health services providers and sets forth pertinent Medicaid policies and service requirements. The Handbook is provided to each Medicaid provider upon enrollment into the Medicaid program and is available online. Each provider is expected and presumed to be familiar with the Handbook. The Handbook was incorporated by reference into rule 59G-4.025, Assistive Care Services. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, New Life was an assistive care services provider as defined by the Handbook. The Handbook provides in pertinent part: Recipients receiving Assistive Care Services must have a complete assessment at least annually . . . or sooner if a significant change in the recipient's condition occurs . . . . An annual assessment must be completed no more than one year plus fifteen days after the last assessment. An assessment triggered by a significant change must be completed no more than fifteen days after the significant change. The assessment for a resident of a ALF . . . must be completed by a physician or other licensed practitioner of the healing arts (Physician Assistant, Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner, Registered Nurse) acting within the scope of practice under state law, physician assistant or advanced registered practitioner. * * * The assessment for ALF [assisted living facility] residents must be recorded on the Resident Health Assessment for Assisted Living Facilities, AHCA Form 1823. * * * Along with the annual assessment requirement, all recipients receiving ACS [Assistive Care Services] must have an updated Certification of Medical Necessity for Medicaid Assistive Care Services, AHCA- Med Serv Form 035, July 2009, signed by a physician or other licensed practitioner of the healing arts (Physician Assistant, Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner, Registered Nurse) and the Resident Service Plan for Assistive Care Services, AHCA-Med Serv Form 036, July 2009, completed and available in the recipient's case file at the facility. * * * Every ACS recipient must have a service plan completed by the ACS service provider. The Resident Service Plan for Assistive Care Services, AHCA-Med Serv Form 036, July 2009, shall be used for each recipient receiving ACS. The form must be included in the recipient's case file at the facility. The ALF, RTF [residential medical facility] and AFCH [adult family care home] are responsible for ensuring the service plan is developed and implemented. * * * The Resident Service Plan for Assistive Care Services (AHCA-Med Serv Form 036) must be completed within 15 days after the initial health assessment or annual assessment, be in writing and based on information contained in the health assessment. . . . * * * A new service plan is required on an annual basis or sooner if a significant change in the recipient's condition occurs. The new service plan must be completed no more than 15 days after the annual assessment or an assessment because of a significant change in the recipient's condition. * * * In addition to records required by the applicable licensure standards, ACS records that must be kept include: Copies of all eligibility documents; Health Assessment Forms, AHCA Form 1823 . . .; Certification of Medical Necessity for Medicaid Assistive Care Services, AHCA-Med Serv Form 035; The Resident Service Plan for Assistive Care Services, AHCA-Med Serv Form 036; and The Resident Service Log, AHCA-Med Serv Form 037. This documentation must be maintained at the facility, kept for at least five years, and be made available to the Agency for Health Care Administration monitoring or surveyor staff or its designated representative, upon request. . . . * * * ACS documentation may be in electronic format. The original, signed . . . documents must be kept in the recipient's case file in the facility . . . for audit, monitoring and quality assurance purposes. . . . Handbook at P 2-7 through 2-11. AHCA's investigator performed a site visit at New Life on December 8, 2011. The investigator reviewed case files of residents for the service-period covering January 1, 2011, through November 30, 2011 (service-period). AHCA's investigator found deficiencies in the case files of seven residents at New Life: M.B.; R.F.; E.H.; R.J.; I.M.; K.L.; and J.S. Additional documents, not contained in the case files during the site visit, were provided subsequent to the site visit. Regarding Resident M.B., the Health Assessment and the Resident Service Plan were dated August 17, 2010, which was after the service-period; and the Certification of Medical Necessity was dated March 28, 2012, which was not within the service-period and after the site visit. The evidence demonstrates that the case file of Resident M.B. lacked the Health Assessment, Resident Service Plan, and Certification of Medical Necessity for the service- period. As to Resident R.F., the Health Assessment was dated January 1, 2011, which was within the service-period but not up- to-date; the Resident Service Plan was up-to-date; and the Certification of Medical Necessity was dated March 1, 2012, which was not within the service-period and after the site visit. The evidence demonstrates that the case file of Resident R.F. lacked the Health Assessment and Certification of Medical Necessity for the service-period. Regarding Resident E.H., the Health Assessment was dated January 24, 2011, and was up-to-date; the Resident Service Plan was not provided; and the Certification of Medical Necessity was dated September 27, 2002, with no more recent Certification of Medical Necessity. The evidence demonstrates that the case file of Resident E.H. lacked the Resident Service Plan and Certification of Medical Necessity for the service-period. As to Resident R.J., the parties stipulated that the Health Assessment was up-to-date; the Resident Service Plan was not provided; and the Certification of Medical Necessity was dated February 29, 2012, which was not within the service-period and after the site visit. The evidence demonstrates that the case file of Resident R.J. lacked the Resident Service Plan and Certification of Medical Necessity for the service-period. Regarding Resident I.M., the Health Assessment and the Resident Service Plan were up-to-date; and the Certification of Medical Necessity was dated March 1, 2012, which was not within the service-plan and after the site visit. The evidence demonstrates that the case file of Resident I.M. lacked the Certification of Medical Necessity for the service-period. As to Resident K.L., the Health Assessment was dated March 1, 2012, which was not within the service-period and after the site visit; the Resident Service Plan was not provided; and the Certification of Medical Necessity was provided, but the date as to the year was unintelligible even though the month and day were intelligible, i.e., March 1. The evidence demonstrates that the case file of Resident K.L. lacked the Health Assessment, Resident Service Plan, and Certification of Medical Necessity for the service- period. Regarding Resident J.S., the Health Assessment was dated August 22, 2009, which was not within the service-period; the Resident Service Plan was not provided; and the Certification of Medical Necessity was dated February 29, 2012, which was not within the service-period and was after the site visit. The evidence demonstrates that the case file of Resident J.S. lacked the Health Assessment, Resident Service Plan, and Certification of Medical Necessity for the service period. The Director and owner of New Life is Ethel Newton. Ms. Newton has been the Director and owner for the past 13 years. She was not familiar with the Health Assessment form, the Resident Service Plan form, or the Certification of Medical Necessity form. Ms. Newton advised AHCA's investigator that she was not familiar with the forms and admitted same at the hearing. Ms. Newton historically depended upon the assistance of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCF) to complete any required forms. She depended upon DCF until 2005 when DCF closed its local office which had been assisting her. After DCF closed its local office, Ms. Newton depended upon the residents' case managers at New Horizons, an agency where the residents' physicians are located, to complete any required forms. Five of the seven residents had case managers at New Horizons; J.S. and E.H. did not have case managers at New Horizons. E.H. is no longer a resident at New Life. Ms. Newton is willing to cooperate with AHCA and do whatever it takes to have the required forms completed timely and correctly. The evidence does not demonstrate that Ms. Newton intentionally failed to complete the required forms. None of the seven residents were harmed as a result of the deficiencies in the documentation. No evidence was presented demonstrating that New Life has any prior administrative sanction or penalty. No evidence was presented demonstrating that New Life has any prior violations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order: Finding that New Life Assisted Living, Inc., d/b/a New Life Assisted Living Facility, violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-9.070(7)(e) by failing to have in the case files of Resident M.B., Resident K.L., and Resident J.S. a Health Assessment, Resident Service Plan, and Certification of Medical Necessity for the service-period covering January 1, 2011, through November 30, 2011; by failing to have in the case file of Resident R.F. a Health Assessment and Certification of Medical Necessity for the service-period covering January 1, 2011, through November 30, 2011; by failing to have in the case file of Resident E.H. and Resident R.J. a Resident Service Plan and Certification of Medical Necessity for the service-period covering January 1, 2011, through November 30, 2011; and by failing to have in Resident I.M.'s case file a Certification of Medical Necessity for the service-period covering January 1, 2011, through November 30, 2011; Requiring New Life Assisted Living, Inc., d/b/a New Life Assisted Living Facility to enter into a corrective action plan; and Imposing a fine against New Life Assisted Living, Inc., d/b/a New Life Assisted Living Facility in the amount of $1,750.00. S DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 2012.
The Issue Whether Respondent is liable for overpayment of Medicaid claims, for the period of January 1, 2004, through January 1, 2006, as stated in Petitioner’s Final Audit Report (FAR), dated July 19, 2006, due to Respondent’s failure to properly document for services billed and collected, in violation of Section 409.913, Florida Statutes (2006),1 and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the single state agency under federal law, charged with administration of the Medicaid Program in Florida, and is charged with recovering overpayments to providers. Petitioner’s Bureau of Medicaid Integrity (MPI) has the primary responsibility to audit medical service providers who participate in the Medicaid program. MPI is a Bureau under the AHCA Inspector General. MPI conducts audits to review provider’s compliance with applicable statutes, rules, and policies regarding billing Medicaid for services rendered. An MPI audit is separate and distinct from an annual or other licensure survey or inspection conducted by Petitioner. The MPI audit is a compliance audit not a licensure one. MPI is mandated to review for provider fraud and abuse to ensure that the recipients are receiving the service for which Medicaid is paying. Respondent is a Florida licensed Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP) and provided medical services, including psychological counseling to Medicaid recipients, pursuant to a contract with Petitioner under her Provider number 302123800. Respondent participated in the Medicaid program at least from July 1, 2001, and continuously through December 31, 2005 (end of the Audit Period). Petitioner was paid for the services rendered. The audit period for Respondent was determined to be from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2005. Claims for services were reviewed for a standard two-year audit period, and were audited for coding, records and visits. Thirty recipients were picked as a sample of recipients to examine during the two-year audit period. The selection was random and computer generated. Respondent was notified that Petitioner was conducting an audit. Respondent provided the charts on the 30 recipients to be examined and each of their claims during the audit period, which comprised all of her medical records. Gary Mosier is a Registered Nurse (RN), and holds a master’s degree in health care administration. Mosier is employed by the AHCA Inspector General, MPI, and is a nurse consultant and investigator. He was lead analyst and investigator in this matter. James Edgar, M.D., a psychiatrist with 35 years of experience, was retained by Petitioner as a peer review expert to review the charts and give a coding opinion. Billing codes are five-digit numbers. There are general guidelines for establishing the degree of difficulty which are set forth in documents such as Documentation Guidelines for Evaluation and Management Services, published by the American Medical Association. However, the correct coding can only be established through expert testimony, which is based upon established and identified criteria. With respect to each of the services reviewed, Petitioner relied upon the opinion of its expert, Dr. Edgar, as to whether or not Respondent billed Medicaid correctly. Dr. Edgar based his opinion on a review of documents regarding each service which were provided to him by Petitioner. In each instance where the Billing Code 90807, Individual Psychotherapy, Insight Orientation, appeared on Respondents charts for all 30 patients, Dr. Edgar down-coded the charts to Code 90862, medical management. He did not disallow payment, he adjusted each of them. His opinion was that, without the time spent with the patient being delineated on the medical chart, then the visit must be down-coded, or it could be denied completely. Dr. Edgar’s testimony was credible and persuasive. A Preliminary Audit Report (PAR) was sent to Respondent on September 12, 2006. The PAR informed Respondent of an alleged overpayment and explained her options prior to the completion of a FAR. It also put Respondent on notice of possible sanctions for lack of response to Petitioner. AHCA pays for mental health counseling when the face- to-face time spent with the recipient is documented. The medical records resulting from these services are required by law to be maintained for five years following the dates of service. These records must be made available when requested by Petitioner. Respondent was requested to produce office appointment sheets or calendars in order to document her face-to-face time with patients. Respondent sent non-contemporaneous time listings, rather than chart materials or office materials to verify and document time spent. There existed no charted or office records of the time spent with patients. Although Respondent testified that these time listings were implied because of the code that she submitted to Petitioner, this testimony is not persuasive in proving a material fact in dispute. The FAR was sent to Respondent on November 7, 2006, with the spreadsheet attachment. As with the PAR, it informed Respondent of the issues involved with the audit and the overpayment calculations and sought to levy a sanction, if one applied. There was no documentation in the charts of the time expended in the patient encounter, as required under the law. Although Petitioner agreed that the use of the Code 90807 implied that there was one hour of face-to-face contact with a patient, CPT policy requires both medication management and therapy, not just medication management. There was no time of service, time spent, and no start or stop times noted in the medical records. These notations are specifically required under Medicaid policy. A record must reflect the time spent face-to-face with a patient. The final overpayment calculation and final audit reports document that the overpayment to be recouped, and which Petitioner seeks, is $12,500.70, with an added sanction of $1,500.00. The preponderance of evidence has shown that Respondent was overpaid in the amount of $12,500.70, and that Petitioner is authorized to impose a penalty of $1,500.00.
Recommendation Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order instructing Respondent to repay the sum of $12,500.70, and imposing a fine if appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. 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 2nd day of March, 2010.
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) Whether Respondent violated section 409.913, Florida Statutes, by failing to have documentation evidencing the receipt of current Zero Tolerance training in three employees' files; failing to have documentation showing that one employee has a high school diploma or equivalent; failing to have documentation of an implementation plan in one consumer's file; failing to have documentation of quarterly summaries in one consumer's file; and failing to have written policies and procedures addressing the staff training plan and specifying how pre-service and in- service activities will be carried out, including HIV/AIDS training, cardiopulmonary resuscitation training, and all other training mandated pursuant to section 381.0035; and (2) if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Medicaid Provider Agreement Petitioner is the state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program2/ pursuant to chapter 409. Petitioner's duties include operating a program to oversee the activities of Medicaid recipients, providers, and their representatives to ensure that fraudulent and abusive behavior and neglect of recipients occur to the minimum extent possible, and to recover overpayments and impose sanctions as appropriate. § 409.913(1), Fla. Stat. To that end, Petitioner is authorized to conduct investigations of Medicaid providers to determine compliance with the Medicaid program. § 409.913(2), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an enrolled Medicaid provider3/ providing residential rehabilitation and companion care services to the developmentally disabled pursuant to a valid Medicaid Provider Agreement ("MPA") with Petitioner.4/ The MPA establishes the terms and conditions of an enrolled provider's participation in the Medicaid program. A key condition is that the provider agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws, including rules, regulations, and statements of policy applicable to the Medicaid program, including the Medicaid Handbooks. The Florida Medicaid Developmental Disabilities Waiver Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook, dated November 2010 ("Disabilities Handbook"), and the Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook, dated July 2008 ("General Handbook"), are among the laws and policies applicable to this proceeding. Petitioner's Inspection of Respondent's Facility On September 27, 2011, Ms. Gina Selwitz, an Inspector Specialist with Petitioner's Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity ("MPI"),5/ along with another employee of Respondent's Bureau of MPI and a representative from the United States Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, conducted a site inspection at Respondent's facility, to determine Respondent's compliance with applicable Medicaid Program requirements. In the course of the inspection, Ms. Selwitz and the other inspection team members reviewed Respondent's employee records and recipient files for compliance with applicable Medicaid program requirements. They contemporaneously documented their findings on checklists. While at the facility, Ms. Selwitz hand-delivered a demand letter with an attached provider questionnaire form and a Certification of Completeness form to Respondent. The letter stated in pertinent part: Pursuant to Section 409.913, Florida Statutes ("F.S."), this is official notice that the Agency requests that documentation for services paid by the Florida Medicaid program to the above provider number. The Medicaid-related records to substantiate billing for the recipients identified on the enclosed printout are due within fifteen (15) calendar days of our receipt of this notification. In addition, please complete the attached questionnaire and submit it along with the copies of the Medicaid- related records. Please submit the documentation and the attached Certification of Completeness of Records to the Agency within this timeframe.... Respondent signed a form acknowledging receipt of the demand letter. Respondent completed and signed the provider questionnaire and the Certification of Completeness form and submitted them, along with the requested records, to Petitioner. By signing the Certification of Completeness form, Respondent verified that the records it provided were true and correct copies of all requested information. Petitioner received the records and completed forms on October 4, 2011. After the inspection was completed, Ms. Selwitz reviewed the checklists prepared during the inspection and determined that the following was missing from Respondent's files: (1) Documentation showing current Zero Tolerance training missing from employee files of Respondent's employees L.Q., A.G., and A.H.; (2) Documentation showing receipt of a high school diploma missing from the file of L.Q.; (3) Documentation of an implementation plan in the consumer file for A.G.-A.; (4) Documentation of quarterly summaries in the consumer file for L.G.; and (5) Written policies and procedures addressing the staff training plan and specifying how pre- service and in-service activities will be carried out, including HIV/AIDS training, C.P.R. training, and all other training mandated pursuant to section 381.0035. On February 22, 2011, Petitioner sent Respondent a Sanction Letter specifically identifying these deficiencies, stating that the deficiencies constitute violations of federal and state Medicaid laws, and imposing a total fine of $7,000.00. Findings Regarding Alleged Violations Zero Tolerance Training Ms. Selwitz testified that the inspection of Respondent's facility revealed that documentation evidencing the receipt of current Zero Tolerance training was missing from the employee files for A.G., A.H., and L.Q. Her testimony was supported by the inspection checklist prepared at the time of the inspection, indicating that L.Q.'s and A.H.'s employee files did not contain documentation showing that they had received Zero Tolerance training, and that the A.G.'s Zero Tolerance training had expired.6/ At hearing, Respondent conceded that A.G.'s Zero Tolerance training had expired. With respect to A.H., at hearing Respondent provided a document purporting to be an unofficial transcript from Tallahassee Community College showing that Respondent had completed Zero Tolerance in 2010, so that her training was current. However, Respondent acknowledged that this documentation was not in A.H.'s employee file at the time of Petitioner's inspection. With respect to L.Q., Respondent claims that documentation showing her current Zero Tolerance training was, in fact, present in her employee file, and that Petitioner's inspection team overlooked the documentation. Respondent noted that Delmarva7/ had inspected the facility approximately 15 days before Petitioner's inspection, and claimed that Delmarva's report did not show Zero Tolerance documentation deficiencies for L.Q.'s file. Respondent argues that this shows that that the Zero Tolerance documentation was present in L.Q.'s file when Petitioner inspected the facility and Petitioner's inspection team simply overlooked it. In support, Respondent provided a document purported to be the Delmarva inspection report. The persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent violated the requirement to maintain documentation of current Zero Tolerance Training in the employee files of A.G., A.H., and L.Q. At hearing, Respondent conceded that A.G.'s Zero Tolerance training had expired and that A.H.'s employee file did not contain the required Zero Tolerance Training documentation at the time Petitioner conducted its inspection. Further, Ms. Selwitz credibly testified that L.Q.'s employee file did not contain the required Zero Tolerance training information, and her testimony was buttressed by the contemporaneously-prepared inspection checklists. Respondent did not provide persuasive evidence to the contrary.8/ Accordingly, it is determined that Respondent violate Medicaid laws, rules, regulations, and policies by failing to have Zero Tolerance training documentation in the employee files for A.G., A.H., and L.Q. Educational Level Documentation for L.Q. Ms. Selwitz testified that during the inspection, the team determined that documentation was missing from L.Q.'s employee file showing that she possessed the required level educational training——i.e., a high school diploma or equivalent9/——to serve as direct care staff providing residential rehabilitation services. Ms. Selwitz's testimony was supported by the inspection checklist, which expressly noted the lack of high school diploma or general educational development ("G.E.D.") in L.Q.'s file and that a copy of L.Q.'s application for employment with Respondent stated that she had not graduated from high school. At hearing, L.Q., a director and employee of Respondent, testified on behalf of Respondent, and Respondent offered for admission into evidence a document purported to be L.Q.'s application for employment with Respondent. The application stated that Respondent had graduated from high school. L.Q testified that this application was completed in 2006 when she started working with Respondent, but subsequently testified that she graduated from high school in 2008. Her testimony was inconsistent with, and undercut the veracity of, the document Respondent offered to show that L.Q. met the educational training level requirement. Furthermore, even if L.Q. satisfied the applicable educational training requirements, Respondent did not provide credible evidence to overcome Petitioner's showing that the required documentation showing that training was not in L.Q.'s file when Petitioner inspected Respondent's facility. Accordingly, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent violated Medicaid laws, rules, regulations, and policies by failing to have documentation of L.Q.'s educational status in her employee file. Inclusion of Implementation Plan in Consumer File Ms. Selwitz testified that the inspection also showed that a current Implementation Plan was not included in A.G.-A.'s consumer file, and her testimony was supported by the Residential Rehabilitation Services checklist that Petitioner's team completed at the time of the inspection. Respondent did not offer any testimony or other evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, Petitioner established that Respondent violated applicable Medicaid laws, rules, regulations, and policies by failing to have in its files a copy of the current Implementation Plan for consumer A.G.-A. Quarterly Summary Documentation in Consumer File Ms. Selwitz testified that Petitioner's inspection also revealed that Respondent failed to include a quarterly summary in L.G.'s consumer file documenting her progress, and this testimony was supported by the inspection checklists. At hearing, Respondent conceded this violation. Accordingly, Petitioner demonstrated that Respondent violated applicable Medicaid laws, rules, regulations, and policies by failing to have a quarterly summary in L.G.'s consumer file. Written Policies and Procedures Addressing Staff Training At hearing, Respondent conceded that at the time of the inspection, it failed to have written policies and procedures addressing the staff training plan and specifying how pre-service and in-service activities will be carried out, including HIV/AIDS training, C.P.R. training, and all other training mandated pursuant to section 381.0035. Accordingly, it is determined that Respondent violated applicable Medicaid laws, rules, regulations, and policies by failing to maintain this required documentation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order determining that Respondent violated federal and state Medicaid laws as charged in the February 22, 2012 Sanction Letter, and imposing a fine of $7,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 3rd day of December, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary' evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: DHRS administers the Program which is jointly funded by the state and federal government under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. The Program is voluntary and is subject to both state and federal laws, rules and regulations. The Program does not reimburse providers such as Dr. Clement for all services rendered. Only those services which are determined to be medically necessary or which the state has determined it wishes to provide are covered by the Program. The services to be rendered and the fees to be paid for those services are set forth in the policy manuals and fee schedules which are given the provider when he enrolls in the Program. Under the Program, the provider files claims in accordance with the policies set forth in the manual. Those claims are computer processed and it is assumed that the provider is submitting the claims in accordance with the policies. The computer system is not programmed to reject all erroneous claims. Therefore, the provider is automatically reimbursed based upon claims submitted. The Program operates on the honor system and must "pay and chase" providers who submit improper claims. Under the Program the state is required to protect the integrity of the Program by reviewing providers for possible fraud and abuse. The Program utilizes a Surveillance Utilization and Review System (SURS) which compares a provider's Medicaid practice with that of his peers. This system takes the provider's computer generated claims history and compares it both quantitatively and qualitatively with the average practice of his peers. When a potential problem is detected, the provider's practice is further reviewed to determine if fraud or abuse has occurred. On November 4, 1983, Dr. Clement signed a provider agreement with DHRS and operated under this provider agreement at all times material to this proceeding. In signing this provider agreement, Dr. Clement agreed to "submit requests for payment in accordance with program policies" and to, "abide by the provisions of the Florida Statutes, policies, procedures, manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program and Federal laws and regulations. In billing under the Program, Dr. Clement is expected to provide services in accordance with generally accepted practices of his profession of dentistry. Those services for which a provider may submit claims are set forth in the Children's Dental Services Manual (HRSM 230-22), a copy of which was provided to Dr. Clement when he entered the Program. In addition to the manual, Dr. Clement was provided with an EDS Billing Handbook which explained the mechanics of submitting a claim. HRSM 230-22 is merely a compilation of procedures for which the Program will reimburse the provider along with the reimbursement rate for each procedure. The manual utilizes procedures and codes utilized by the American Dental Association, is prepared with technical assistance of dental consultants, and is reviewed by various dental associations. The manual is designed for use by dental providers who are knowledgeable in the field of dentistry and are utilizing generally accepted principles of dentistry. In 1985 a SURS Level I Review report, comparing Dr. Clement with his peer group of general dentists providing services to children, indicated possible inappropriate billing of the Program. Because of the nature and extent of the billing problems, Dr. Clement's case was referred to the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) of the State of Florida's Auditor General's Office for possible criminal prosecution. DHRS took no further action pending the criminal investigation. Criminal charges were subsequently filed against Dr. Clement as a result of the MFCU investigation and Dr. Clement's case was referred back to the Medicaid Office of Program Integrity for review of nine possible areas of program policy violations which were not part of the criminal prosecution. The Program thereupon conducted its own investigation into possible abuse by Dr. Clement. Using the preliminary investigation done by an HRS dental consultant who reviewed Dr. Clement's practice for MFCU, and the original Level I Review report, a DHRS investigator reviewed ad hoc computer reports of claims submitted by Dr. Clement for specific dental procedures. Based upon the computer analysis of claims submitted, as well as the advice of the dental consultant, the Program identified nine areas of Dr. Clement's practice of Medicaid billing which were not in compliance with Medicaid billing procedures or generally accepted standards of dental practice. On sixty-six occasions, Dr. Clement submitted claims and was paid for procedures such as examinations, prophylaxis and fluoride treatment at intervals of less than six months. HRSM 230-22 recommends that such procedures be performed no more frequently than once every six months, and this recommendation is recognized under generally accepted standards of dentistry. This recommendation is applicable to both private pay patients and Medicaid patients who are generally indigent. Although such treatment may be necessary on occasions at shorter intervals, Dr. Clement offered no evidence to justify the frequency or the necessity of providing such procedures at intervals of less than the recommended six months. On two hundred and eighty six occasions, Dr. Clement improperly filed claims and received payment for consultations. HRSM 230-22 only allows claims for consultations by a dental specialist (oral surgeon, periodontist, endodontist, or prosthodontist). Dr. Clement is not a dental specialist and should not have submitted claims for such procedures. The manual's definition and interpretation of the appropriate billing procedure for consultation services is in accordance with the generally accepted practice of dentistry. On ninety four occasions, Dr. Clement submitted claims and received payment for behavior management and nitrous oxide on the same visit. HRSM 230- 22 only allows claims for behavior management where nitrous oxide is not used. There was no evidence to show that both behavior management and nitrous oxide on the same visit was necessary. On seven occasions, Dr. Clement submitted claims and received payment for extracting more than one first tooth in a given quadrant. HRSM 230-22 provides a fee of $10.00 for the extraction of the first tooth in a given quadrant which is billed on a claim as procedure D7110 whereas each additional tooth extracted in the same quadrant at the same time is reimbursed at the rate of $7.00 and billed on a claim as procedure D7120. The fee for the removal of the first tooth in a given quadrant is higher than the fee for each succeeding tooth in the same quadrant because anesthesia for the first tooth does not have be administered for each succeeding tooth in the same quadrant. Dr. Clement received payment for 117 alveolectomies (a reshaping of the bone) performed on 52 children which is an excessive number. Alveolectomies should only be performed in extreme cases where, without an alveolectomy, the insertion of dentures or partials would be impossible. It is standard dental practice to perform an alveolectomy only where a denture is supplied. Performing an alveolectomy on a child is not a common practice. There was no evidence that Dr. Clement performed the alveolectomies in preparation of insertion of partials or dentures. Dr. Clement filed an excessive number of claims for pulp caps. A pulp cap is a protective material utilized when the pulp of the tooth is exposed (direct pulp cap) or nearly exposed (indirect pulp cap). HRSM 230-22 differentiates a pulp cap from a medicated base. A pulp cap is reimbursable as a separate claim, the medicated base is not. Dr. Clement claimed and received payment for pulp caps 68.7 percent of the time in conjunction with a tooth restoration. There was credible evidence to show that in the generally accepted practice of dentistry, pulp caps are used no more than 5 percent of the time in a tooth restoration. Dr. Clement billed for pulp caps whenever he applied a medicated base, even though the pulp was not exposed or nearly exposed. On one hundred occasions Dr. Clement improperly filed claims and received payment for palliative (emergency) treatment at the same time that he filed a claim and was paid for regular dental treatment. Palliative treatment is used to relieve pain and discomfort on an emergency basis when time and circumstances contra-indicate a more definitive treatment and additional services. In the general accepted practice of dentistry, palliative treatment is used as a temporary measure to assist the patient until such time as regular treatment can be provided. Palliative treatment and any other treatment are mutually exclusive and normally would not be given on the same day. On those occasion where Dr. Clement filed claims and received payment for both palliative treatment and regular treatment on the same day, there is insufficient evidence to show that this treatment was within the generally accepted practice of dentistry. On sixteen occasions Dr. clement improperly filed claims and was paid for prophylaxis, periodontal scaling, and gingival curettage all on the same date of service. Prophylaxis is the standard cleaning of the teeth. Periodontal scaling is a more advanced procedure of cleaning wherein larger deposits of caclculus are removed by scraping. Gingival curretage is a more drastic procedures wherein pockets which have formed between the gum and the teeth are scraped out. While all three procedures are different, they overlap somewhat and it is not a generally accepted practice of dentistry to perform more than one of these procedures at any given time. There was no evidence presented to show that performing all three procedures on the same date was necessary or was within the generally accepted practice of dentistry. Dr. Clement filed an excessive number of claims for gingival curretage. Dr. Clement claimed and received payment for gingival curretage on 14 percent of his patients under the age of 17. In the generally accepted practice of dentistry, the use of gingival curretage on children will not normally exceed 1 percent to 3 percent for ages 10 and under or 3 percent to 6 percent over the age of 10. Although Dr. Clement urged that these claims for gingival curretage had been given prior approval, the evidence showed that the prior approval had been given based on information furnished by Dr. Clement and the dental consultant giving the prior approval did so on that information on a case by case basis and did not know of the excessive use of gingival curretage by Dr. Clement. Based on the nine areas cited for inappropriate billing, there is substantial competent evidence to show that Dr. Clement was not following generally accepted standards of dental practice.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order finding that Dr. Clement has abused the Florida Medicaid Program and terminating Dr. Clement from participation in the Florida Medicaid Program. Respectfully submitted and entered this 7th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 7th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3023 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 as clarified. 21. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 but clarified. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 9 The first sentence adopted in Finding of Fact 19. The balance is rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore E. Mack, Esquire 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Harold E. Regan, Esquire 308 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
