Conclusions THE PARTIES resolved all disputed issues and executed a Settlement Agreement. The parties are directed to comply with the terms of the attached settlement agreement. Based on the foregoing, this file is CLOSED. DONE and ORDERED on this the _,,sl day of ,,0,e:...,:1c6:c:.... -=-o=:....,U=----' 2014, m Tallahassee, Florida. ELIZ , SECRETARY Agency for Health Care Administration AP ARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF ARCA, AND A SECOND COPY ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BYLAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE AP ARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Theodore E. Mack 3700 Bellwood Dr., Tallahassee, FL 32303 Bureau of Health Quality Assurance 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 9 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Stuart Williams, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Shena Grantham, Chief Medicaid FFS Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Karen Chang, Bureau Chief Medicaid Program Analysis 2727 Mahan Drive Building 2, Mail Station 21 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Agency for Health Care Administration Bureau of Finance and Accounting 2727 Mahan Drive Building 2, Mail Station 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Zainab Day, Medicaid Audit Services Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 21 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Kristin M. Bigham Office of the Attorney General The Capitol PL - 01 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 (Via US Mail) State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (Via U.S. Mail) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to the above named addressees by U.S. Mail on this theof 14. - ? Richard J. Shoop, Esqmre Agency Clerk State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
Conclusions ARCA C.I. No.: 05-3603-000 THE PARTIES resolved all disputed issues and executed a settlement agreement, which is attached and incorporated by reference. The parties are directed to comply with the terms of the attached settlement agreement. Based on the foregoing, this file is CLOSED. Filed October 14, 2009 2:31 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. DONE AND ORDERED on this the ' day of Odo b-L,-' , 2009, in Tallahassee, Florida. Holly Benson, Secretary / Agency for Health Care Administration AP ARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BYLAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies Furnished to: Scott Wicke EmCare 1717 Main Street Suite 5200 Dallas, TX 75201 Karen Dexter, Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration (Interoffice) Peter Williams, Inspector General Agency for Health Care Administration (Interoffice) D. Kenneth Yon, Bureau Chief Medicaid Program Integrity (Interoffice) Finance & Accounting (Interoffice) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served to the above named addresses by mail or interoffice mail this ay of (2:/4 2009. Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. 3, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 922-5873
The Issue Does Petitioner, AHF MCO of Florida, Inc., d/b/a PHC Florida HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan (Positive), have standing to contest the intended award to Simply for Regions 10 and 11 or to seek rejection of all proposals? (Case No. 18-3507 and 18-3508) Should the intended decision of Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), to contract with Simply Healthcare Plans, Inc. (Simply), for Medicaid managed care plans for HIV/AIDS patients in Regions 10 (Broward County) and Region 11 (Miami-Dade and Collier Counties) be invalidated and all proposals rejected? (Case Nos. 18-3507 and 18-3508) Must the Agency negotiate with Petitioner, South Florida Community Care Network, LLC, d/b/a Community Care Plan (Community), about a plan to provide HIV/AIDS Medicaid managed care services in Region 10 because it was the only responsive proposer of services that was a Provider Service Network (PSN)? (Case No. 18-3512) Must the Agency negotiate with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services in Region 10 for people with Serious Mental Illnesses because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3511) Must the Agency contract with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services for Children with Special Needs in Region 10 because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3513) Must the Agency negotiate with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services for Child Welfare patients in Region 10 because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3514)
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES Agency: Section 20.42, Florida Statutes, establishes the Agency as Florida’s chief health policy and planning agency. The Agency is the single state agency authorized to select eligible plans to participate in the Medicaid program. Positive: Positive is a Florida not-for-profit corporation operating a Medicaid health plan dedicated to serving people with HIV/AIDS. Positive serves about 2,000 patients in Florida. Positive’s health plan is accredited by the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Healthcare. Its disease management program is accredited by the National Committee for Quality Assurance. Currently, the Agency contracts with Positive for a SMMC HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan serving Regions 10 and 11. Simply: Simply is a Florida for-profit corporation operating a Medicaid health plan dedicated to serving people with HIV/AIDS. Currently, the Agency contracts with Simply to provide a SMMC HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan for Regions 1 through 3 and 5 through 11. Simply has maintained the largest patient enrollment of all HIV/AIDs plans in Florida since Florida started its statewide Medicaid managed care program. Community Care: Community is a Florida limited liability company. It is a PSN as defined in sections 409.912(1)(b) and 409.962(14), Florida Statutes. Staywell: Staywell is the fictitious name for WellCare of Florida, Inc., serving Florida’s Medicaid population. Sunshine: Sunshine State Health Plan (Sunshine) is a Florida corporation. It offers managed care plans to Florida Medicaid recipients. THE INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE TIMELINE On July 14, 2017, the Agency released 11 ITNs plans for Florida’s Medicaid managed care program in 11 statutorily defined regions. Region 10, Broward County, and Region 11, Miami-Dade and Collier Counties, are the regions relevant to this proceeding. Part IV of chapter 409, creates a statewide, integrated managed care program for Medicaid services. This program called Statewide Medicaid Managed Care includes two programs, Managed Medical Assistance and Long-term Care. Section 409.966(2), directs the Agency to conduct separate and simultaneous procurements to select eligible plans for each region using the ITN procurement process created by section 287.057(1)(c). The ITNs released July 14, 2017, fulfilled that command. The Agency issued 11 identical ITNs of 624 pages, one for each region, in omnibus form. They provided elements for four types of plans. Some elements were common to all types. Others were restricted to a specific plan type defined by intended patient population. The plan types are comprehensive plans, long-term care plus plans, managed medical assistance plans, and specialty plans. Section 409.962(16) defines “Specialty Plan” as a “managed care plan that serves Medicaid recipients who meet specified criteria based on age, medical condition, or diagnosis.” Responding vendors identified the plan type or types that they were proposing. The Agency issued Addendum No. 1 to the ITNs on September 14, 2017. On October 2, 2017, the Agency issued Addendum No. 2 to the ITNs. Addendum 2 included 628 questions about the ITNs and the Agency’s responses to the questions. Florida law permits potential responders to an ITN to challenge the specifications of an ITN, including the addendums. § 120.57(3)(b), Fla. Stat. Nobody challenged the specifications of the ITNs. As contemplated by section 287.057(c)(2), the Agency conducted “a conference or written question and answer period for purposes of assuring the vendors’ full understanding of the solicitation requirements.” Positive, Community, and Simply, along with United Healthcare of Florida, Inc., HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan (United), submitted responses to the ITN in Region 10 proposing HIV/AIDS Specialty Plans. Community was the only PSN to propose an HIV/AIDS plan for Region 10. Positive, Simply, and United submitted replies to the ITN for Region 11, proposing HIV/AIDS Specialty Plans. Community, United, Staywell, and one other provider submitted proposals to provide SMI Specialty Plan services in Region 10. Community was the only responding PSN. Community, Sunshine, and Staywell submitted proposals to provide Child Welfare Specialty Plans (CW) in Region 10. Community was the only PSN. Community, Staywell, and two others submitted proposals to offer Specialty Plans for Children with Special Needs (CSN) in Region 10. Community was one of two responding PSNs. Proposal scoring began November 6, 2017, and ended January 16, 2018. The Agency announced its intended awards on April 24, 2018. On April 24, 2018, the Agency issued its notices of intent to award specialty contracts in Regions 10 and 11. The following charts summarize the Agency’s ranking of the proposals and its intended awards. The two highest ranked plans, which the Agency selected for negotiations, are identified in bold. Region 10 – Children with Special Needs Respondent Intended Award Ranking Staywell No 1 Community No 2 Miami Children’s Health Plan, LLC No 3 Our Children PSN of Florida, LLC No 4 Region 10 – Child Welfare Respondent Intended Award Ranking Staywell No 1 Sunshine Yes 2 Molina Healthcare of Florida, Inc. No 3 Community No 4 Region 10 – HIV/AIDS Respondent Intended Award Ranking Simply Yes 1 United No 2 Community No 3 Positive No 4 Region 10 – Serious Mental Illness Respondent Intended Award Ranking Staywell Yes 1 United No 2 Florida MHS, Inc. No 3 Community No 4 Region 11 – HIV/AIDS Respondent Intended Award Ranking Simply Yes 1 United No 2 Positive No 3 All of the Specialty Plan awards noticed by the Agency went to bidders who also proposed, and received, comprehensive plan awards. The protests, referrals, and proceedings before the Division summarized in the Preliminary Statement followed the Agency’s announcement of its intended awards. TERMS The voluminous ITN consisted of a two-page transmittal letter and three Attachments (A, B, and C), with a total of 34 exhibits to them. They are: Attachment A, Exhibits A-1 through A-8, Attachment B, Exhibits B-1 through B-3, and Attachment C, Exhibits C-1 through C-8. The ITN establishes a two-step process for selecting: an evaluation phase and a negotiation phase. In the evaluation phase, each respondent was required to submit a proposal responding to criteria of the ITN. Proposals were to be evaluated, scored, and ranked. The goal of the evaluation phase was to determine which respondents would move to negotiations, not which would be awarded a contract. The top two ranking Specialty Plans per specialty population would be invited to negotiations. In the negotiation phase, the Agency would negotiate with each invited respondent. After that, the Agency would announce its intended award of a contract to the plan or plans that the Agency determined would provide the best value. Together, the attachments and exhibits combined instructions, criteria, forms, certifications, and data into a “one size fits all” document that described the information required for four categories of managed care plans to serve Medicaid patients. The ITN also provided data to consider in preparing responses. The transmittal letter emphasized, “Your response must comply fully with the instructions that stipulate what is to be included in the response.” The ITNs identified Jennifer Barrett as the procurement officer and sole point of contact with the Agency for vendors. The transmittal letter is reproduced here. This solicitation is being issued by the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, hereinafter referred to as “AHCA” or “Agency”, to select a vendor to provide Statewide Medicaid Managed Care Program services. The solicitation package consists of this transmittal letter and the following attachments and exhibits: Attachment A Instructions and Special ConditionsExhibit A-1 Questions TemplateExhibit A-2-a Qualification of Plan Eligibility Exhibit A-2-b Provider Service Network Certification of Ownership and Controlling InterestExhibit A-2-c Additional Required Certifications and StatementsExhibit A-3-a Milliman Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan Exhibit A-3-b Milliman Employee Organizational Conflict of Interest AffidavitExhibit A-4 Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria InstructionsExhibit A-4-a General Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria Exhibit A-4-a-1 SRC# 6 - General Performance Measurement ToolExhibit A-4-a-2 SRC# 9 - Expanded Benefits Tool (Regional) Exhibit A-4-a-3 SRC# 10 - Additional Expanded Benefits Template (Regional)Exhibit A-4-a-4 SRC# 14 - Standard CAHPS Measurement Tool Exhibit A-4-b MMA Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria Exhibit A-4-b-1 MMA SRC# 6 - Provider Network Agreements/Contracts (Regional)Exhibit A-4-b-2 MMA SRC# 14 - MMA Performance Measurement Tool Exhibit A-4-b-3 MMA SRC# 21 - Provider Network Agreements/Contracts Statewide Essential Providers Exhibit A-4-c LTC Submission Requirements and Evaluation CriteriaExhibit A-4-c-1 LTC SRC# 4 - Provider Network Agreements/Contracts (Regional) Exhibit A-4-d Specialty Submission Requirements and Evaluation CriteriaExhibit A-5 Summary of Respondent CommitmentsExhibit A-6 Summary of Managed Care Savings Exhibit A-7 Certification of Drug-Free Workplace ProgramExhibit A-8 Standard Contract Attachment B Scope of Service - Core Provisions Exhibit B-1 Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) ProgramExhibit B-2 Long-Term Care (LTC) ProgramExhibit B-3 Specialty Plan Attachment C Cost Proposal Instructions and Rate Methodology NarrativeExhibit C-1 Capitated Plan Cost Proposal TemplateExhibit C-2 FFS PSN Cost Proposal Template Exhibit C-3 Preliminary Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Program Rate Cell Factors Exhibit C-4 Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Program Expanded Benefit Adjustment Factors Exhibit C-5 Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Program IBNR Adjustment Factors Exhibit C-6 Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Program Historical Capitated Plan Provider Contracting Levels During SFY 15/16 Time Period Exhibit C-7 Statewide Medicaid Managed Care Data BookExhibit C-8 Statewide Medicaid Managed Care Data Book Questions and Answers Your response must comply fully with the instructions that stipulate what is to be included in the response. Respondents submitting a response to this solicitation shall identify the solicitation number, date and time of opening on the envelope transmitting their response. This information is used only to put the Agency mailroom on notice that the package received is a response to an Agency solicitation and therefore should not be opened, but delivered directly to the Procurement Officer. The ITN describes the plans as follows: Comprehensive Long-term Care Plan (herein referred to as a “Comprehensive Plan”) – A Managed Care Plan that is eligible to provide Managed Medical Assistance services and Long-term Care services to eligible recipients. Long-term Care Plus Plan – A Managed Care Plan that is eligible to provide Managed Medical Assistance services and Long-term Care services to eligible recipients enrolled in the Long-term Care program. This plan type is not eligible to provide services to recipients who are only eligible for MMA services. Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Plan – A Managed Care Plan that is eligible to provide Managed Medical Assistance services to eligible recipients. This plan type is not eligible to provide services to recipients who are eligible for Long-term Care services. Specialty Plan – A Managed Care Plan that is eligible to provide Managed Medical Assistance services to eligible recipients who are defined as a specialty population in the resulting Contract. Specialty Plans are at issue. The ITN did not define, describe, or specify specialty populations to be served. It left that to the responding vendors. Beyond that, the ITN left the ultimate definition of the specialty population for negotiation, saying in Section II(B)(1)(a) of Attachment B, Exhibit B-3, “[t]he Agency shall identify the specialty population eligible for enrollment in the Specialty Plan based on eligibility criteria based upon negotiations.” Some respondents directly identified the specialty population. Simply’s transmittal letter stated that it proposed “a Specialty plan for individuals with HIV/AIDS.” Positive’s response to Exhibit A-4-d Specialty SRC 4, eligibility and enrollment, stated, “the specialty population for the PHC [Positive] plan will be Medicaid eligible, male and female individuals from all age groups who are HIV positive with or without symptoms and those individuals who have progressed in their HIV disease to meet the CDC definition of AIDS.” Some others left definition of the specialty population to be inferred from the ITN response. The result is that the ITN left definition of the specialty populations initially to the respondents and ultimately to negotiations between the Agency and successful respondents. Petitioners and Intervenors describe the populations that they propose serving as HIV/AIDS patients, patients with SMI, CSN, and child welfare populations. ITN respondents could have proposed serving only cancer patients, serving only obstetric patients, or serving only patients with hemophilia. The part of the ITN requiring a respondent to identify the plan type for which it was responding offered only four alternative blocks to check. They were: “Comprehensive Plan,” Long-Term Care Plus Plan,” “Managed Medical Assistance Plan,” or “Specialty Plan.” Attachment A to the ITN, labeled “Instructions and Special Conditions,” provides an overview of the solicitation process; instructions for response preparation and content; information regarding response submission requirements; information regarding response evaluation, negotiations, and contract awards; and information regarding contract implementation. Exhibits A-1 to A-3 and A-5 to A-7 of the ITN contain various certifications and attestations that respondents had to prepare and verify. Exhibit A-4 contains submission requirement components (SRCs) to which respondents had to prepare written responses. Exhibit A-8 contains the state’s standard SMMC contract. ITN Exhibit A-4-a contains 36 general submission requirements and evaluation criteria (General SRCs). ITN Exhibit A-4-b contains 21 MMA submission requirements and evaluation criteria (MMA SRCs). ITN Exhibit A-4-c contains 13 LTC submission requirements and evaluation criteria (LTC SRCs). ITN Exhibit A-4-d contains five specialty submission requirements and evaluation criteria (Specialty SRCs). The responses that the 36 SRCs require vary greatly. Some are as simple as providing documents or listing items. Others require completing tables or spreadsheets with data. Consequently, responses to some SRCS apparently could be reviewed in very little time, even a minute or less. Others requiring narrative responses might take longer. Examples follow. General SRC 1 required a list of the respondent’s contracts for managed care services and 12 information items about them including things such as whether they were capitated, a narrative describing the scope of work; the number of enrollees; and accomplishments and achievement. General SRC 2 asked for documentation of experience operating a Medicaid health plan in Florida. General SRC 3 asked for information confirming the location of facilities and employees in Florida. General SRC 12 requested a flowchart and written description of how the respondent would execute its grievance and appeal system. It listed six evaluation criteria. MMA SRC 2 asks for a description of the respondent’s organizational commitment to quality improvement “as it relates to pregnancy and birth outcomes.” It lists seven evaluation criteria. MMA SRC 10 asks for a description of the respondent’s plan for transition of care between service settings. It lists six evaluation criteria including the respondent’s process for collaboration with providers. Specialty SRC 1 asks for detailed information about respondent’s managed care experience with the specialty population. Specialty SRC 5 asks for detailed information about the respondent’s provider network standards and provides five evaluation criteria for evaluating the answers. Exhibit A-8 of the ITN contains the standard SMMC contract. Attachment B and Exhibits B-1 to B-3 of the ITN contain information about the scope of service and core provisions for plans under the SMMC program. Attachment C and Exhibits C-1 to C-8 of the ITN contain information related to the cost proposals and rate methodologies for plans under the SMMC program. The ITN permitted potential respondents to submit written questions about the solicitation to the Agency by August 14, 2017. Some did. On September 14, 2017, the Agency issued Addendum No. 1 to the ITN. Among other things, Addendum No. 1 changed the anticipated date for the Agency’s responses to respondents’ written questions from September 15 to October 2, 2017. The Agency issued Addendum No. 2 to the ITN on October 2, 2017. Addendum No. 2 included a chart with 628 written questions from potential respondents and the Agency’s answers. Attachment A at A 10-(d) makes it clear that the answers are part of the addendum. Both Addendums to the ITN cautioned that any protest of the terms, conditions, or specifications of the Addendums to the ITN had to be filed with the Agency within 72 hours of their posting. No respondent protested. Instructions for the A-4 Exhibits included these requirements: Each SRC contains form fields. Population of the form fields with text will allow the form field to expand and cross pages. There is no character limit. All SRCs, marked as “(Statewide)” must be identical for each region in which the respondent submits a reply. For timeliness of response evaluation, the Agency will evaluate each “(Statewide)” SRC once and transfer the score to each applicable region’s evaluation score sheet(s). The SRCs marked as “(Regional)” will be specific and only apply to the region identified in the solicitation and the evaluation score will not be transferred to any other region. The instructions continue: Agency evaluators will be instructed to evaluate the responses based on the narrative contained in the SRC form fields and the associated attachment(s), if applicable. Each response will be independently evaluated and awarded points based on the criteria and points scale using the Standard Evaluation Criteria Scale below unless otherwise identified in each SRC contained within Exhibit A-4. This is the scale: STANDARD EVALUATION CRITERIA SCALE Point Score Evaluation 0 The component was not addressed. 1 The component contained significant deficiencies. 2 The component is below average. 3 The component is average. 4 The component is above average. 5 The component is excellent. The ITN further explained that different SRCs would be worth different “weights,” based on the subject matter of the SRC and on whether they were General, MMA, LTC, or Specialty SRCs. It assigned weights by establishing different “weight factors” applied as multipliers to the score a respondent received on a criteria. For example, “Respondent Background/Experience” could generate a raw score of 90. Application of a weight factor of three made 270 the maximum possible score for this criteria. “Oversight and Accountability” could generate a raw score of 275. A weight factor of one, however, made the maximum score available 275. General SRC 6 solicits HEDIS data. HEDIS is a tool that consists of 92 measures across six domains of care that make it possible to compare the performance of health plans on an “apples-to-apples” basis. SRC 6 states: The respondent shall describe its experience in achieving quality standards with populations similar to the target population described in this solicitation. The respondent shall include, in table format, the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible), the respondent’s results for the HEDIS measures specified below for each of the last two (2) years (CY 2015/ HEDIS 2016 and CY 2016/ HEDIS 2017) for the respondent’s three (3) largest Medicaid Contracts (measured by number of enrollees). If the respondent does not have HEDIS results for at least three (3) Medicaid Contracts, the respondent shall provide commercial HEDIS measures for the respondent’s largest Contracts. If the Respondent has Florida Medicaid HEDIS results, it shall include the Florida Medicaid experience as one (1) of three (3) states for the last two (2) years. The respondent shall provide the data requested in Exhibit A-4-a-1, General Performance Measurement Tool[.] x x x Score: This section is worth a maximum of 160 raw points x x x For each of the measure rates, a total of 10 points is available per state reported (for a total of 360 points available). The respondent will be awarded 2 points if their reported plan rate exceeded the national Medicaid mean and 2 points if their reported plan rate exceeded the applicable regional Medicaid mean, for each available year, for each available state. The respondent will be awarded an additional 2 points for each measure rate where the second year’s rate is an improvement over the first year’s rate, for each available state. An aggregate score will be calculated and respondents will receive a final score of 0 through 150 corresponding to the number and percentage of points received out of the total available points. For example, if a respondent receives 100% of the available 360 points, the final score will be 150 points (100%). If a respondent receives 324 (90%) of the available 360 points, the final score will be 135 points (90%). If a respondent receives 36 (10%) of the available 360 points, the final score will be 15 points (10%). The SRC is plainly referring to the broad Medicaid- eligible population when it says “the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible).” “Dual eligible” populations are persons eligible for Medicaid and Medicare. There, as throughout the ITN, the ITN delineates between a target population of all Medicaid-eligible patients and a specialty population as described in a respondent’s ITN proposal. The clear instructions for SRC 6 require, “Use the drop-down box to select the state for which you are reporting and enter the performance measure rates (to the hundredths place, or XX.XX) for that state's Medicaid population for the appropriate calendar year.” Community did not comply. General SRC 14 solicits similar data, in similar form using a similar tool, about a respondent’s Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS). CAHPS data is basically a satisfaction survey. It asks respondents to provide “in table format the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible) and the respondent’s results for the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) items/composites specified below for the 2017 survey for its adult and child populations for the respondent’s three (3) largest Medicaid Contracts (as measured by number of enrollees).” Just like General SRC 6 did with HEDIS data, General SRC 14 ITN instructed bidders to put their CAHPS data for the “target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible)” “for the respondent’s three (3) largest Medicaid Contracts (measured by number of enrollees)” for multiple states into an excel spreadsheet “to the hundredths place[.]” Also, like General SRC 6, General SRC 14 includes an objective formula described in the ITN for scoring bidders’ CAHPS data. RANKING PROVISIONS Attachment A at (D)(4)(c)(2) stated: Each response will be individually scored by at least three (3) evaluators, who collectively have experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which contractual services are sought by this solicitation. The Agency reserves the right to have specific sections of the response evaluated by less than three (3) individuals. The ITN’s example of how total point scores would be calculated, discussed below, also indicated that some sections may be scored by less than three evaluators. The explanatory chart had a column for “[o]ther Sections evaluated by less than three (3) evaluators. ” The Agency’s policy, however, has been to assign at least three evaluators to score program specific SRCs. Attachment A at (D)(4)(e)(2) advised respondents how the agency will rank the competing responses. It was clear and specific, even providing an example of the process showing how the scores “will” be calculated. Step one of the explanatory chart stated that the Agency would calculate a total point score for each response. Step two stated that “[t]he total point scores will be used to rank the responses by an evaluator. . . .” Next, the rankings by the evaluator are averaged to determine the average rank for each respondent. This average ranking is critical because ranking is how the ITN said the Agency would select respondents for negotiation and how the Agency did select respondents for negotiation. The step two and step three charts, reproduced below, demonstrate that the ITN contemplated an evaluation process in which each response was to be evaluated in its entirety by three different evaluators, or maybe less than three, but indisputably in its entirety by those who evaluated it. This did not happen. Step 2 The total point scores will be used to rank the responses by evaluator (Response with the highest number of points = 1, second highest = 2, etc.). POINTS SUMMARY Evaluator A Evaluator B Evaluator C Evaluator D Respondent 446 Respondent 396 Respondent 311 Respondent 413 Respondent 425 Respondent 390 Respondent 443 Respondent 449 Respondent 397 Respondent 419 Respondent 389 Respondent 435 Respondent 410 Respondent 388 Respondent 459 Respondent 325 RANKING SUMMARY Evaluator A Evaluator B Evaluator C Evaluator D Respondent 1 1 Respondent 1 2 Respondent 1 4 Respondent 3 Respondent 2 2 Respondent 2 3 Respondent 2 2 Respondent 1 Respondent 3 4 Respondent 3 1 Respondent 3 3 Respondent 2 Respondent 4 3 Respondent 4 4 Respondent 4 1 Respondent 4 c) Step 3 An average rank will be calculated for each response for all the evaluators. Respondent 1 1+2+4+3=10÷4=2.5 Respondent 2 2+3+2+1=8÷4=2.0 Respondent 3 4+1+3+2=10÷4=2.5 Respondent 4 3+4+1+4=12÷4=3.0 PROVIDER SERVICE NETWORK PROVISIONS Florida law permits a PSN to limit services provided to a target population “based on age, chronic disease state, or medical condition of the enrollee.” This allows a PSN to offer a specialty plan. For each region, the eligible plan requirements of section 409.974(1) state, “At least one plan must be a provider service network if any provider service networks submit a responsive bid.” Section 409.974(3) says: “Participation by specialty plans shall be subject to the procurement requirements of this section. The aggregate enrollment of all specialty plans in a region may not exceed 10 percent of the total enrollees of that region.” The ITN addressed those requirements. The Negotiation Process section of Attachment A, Instructions and Special Conditions, says: The Agency intends to invite the following number of respondents to negotiation: Comprehensive Plans The top four (4) ranking Comprehensive Plans. Long-term Care Plus Plans The top two (2) ranking Long-term Care Plus Plans Managed Medical Assistance Plans The top two (2) ranking Managed Medical Assistance Plans Specialty Managed Medical Assistance Plans The top two (2) ranking Specialty Managed Medical Assistance Plans per specialty population. If there are no provider service networks included in the top ranked respondents listed above, the Agency will invite the highest ranked PSN(s) to negotiations in order to fulfill the requirements of Section 409.974(1), Florida Statutes and Section 409.981(1), Florida Statutes. Emphasis supplied. The ITN specifications in Section D.7, titled Number of Awards, state as follows about Specialty Plan awards: 7. Number of Awards In accordance with Sections 409.966, 409.974, and 409.981, Florida Statutes, the Agency intends to select a limited number of eligible Managed Care Plans to provide services under the SMMC program in Region 10. The Agency anticipates issuing the number of Contract awards for Region 10 as described in Table 5, SMMC Region, below, excluding awards to Specialty MMA Plans. Table 5 SMMC Region Region Total Anticipated Contract Awards Region 10 4 If a respondent is awarded a Contract for multiple regions, the Agency will issue one (1) Contract to include all awarded regions. The Agency will award at least one (1) Contract to a PSN provided a PSN submits a responsive reply and negotiates a rate acceptable to the Agency. The Agency, at its sole discretion, shall make this determination. A respondent that is awarded a Contract as a Comprehensive Plan is determined to satisfy the requirements in Section 409.974, Florida Statutes and Section 409.981, Florida Statutes and shall be considered an awardee of an MMA Contract and a LTC Contract. The Agency will issue one (1) Contract to reflect all awarded populations in all awarded regions. In addition to the number of Contracts awarded in this region, additional Contracts may be awarded to Specialty Plans that negotiate terms and conditions determined to be the best value to the State and negotiate a rate acceptable to the Agency. The Agency, at its sole discretion, shall make this determination. The Agency reserves the right to make adjustments to the enrollee eligibility and identification criteria proposed by a Specialty Plan prior to Contract award in order to ensure that the aggregate enrollment of all awarded Specialty Plans in a region will not exceed ten percent (10%) of the total enrollees in that region, in compliance with Section 409.974(3), Florida Statutes. If a respondent is awarded a Contract as a Specialty Plan and another plan type, the Agency will issue one (1) Contract to include all awarded populations in all awarded regions. A prospective vendor asked about the interplay of Specialty Plan options and the PSN requirements. The question and the answer provided in Addendum 2 follow: Q. Please clarify the number of PSN awards per region and how PSN awards will be determined based on the PSN's plan type (e.g., Comprehensive, LTC Plus, MMA, Specialty). As you know, Sections 409.974 and 409.981, Florida Statutes require one MMA PSN and one LTC PSN award per region (assuming a PSN is responsive) and the Agency has stated that an award to a Comprehensive Plan PSN will meet the requirements of both statutes. However, can the Agency further clarify whether other types of PSNs would meet the statutory requirements? Specifically, would a PSN LTC Plus award meet the requirements of Section 409.981, Florida Statutes? Similarly, would an award to a Specialty Plan PSN meet the requirements of Section 409.974, Florida Statutes? A. See Attachment A Instructions and Special Conditions, Section D Response Evaluations, and Contract Award, Sub-Section 7 Number of Awards. Yes, a PSN LTC Plus award would meet the requirements of Section 409.981(2). A Specialty Plan PSN would not meet the requirements of Section 409.974(1). The only reasonable interpretation of this answer is that Specialty Plan PSNs do not satisfy the requirement to contract with a responsive PSN imposed by section 409.974. None of the prospective vendors, including Community, challenged this clarification. EVALUATION PROCESS THE EVALUATORS The Agency selected 11 people to evaluate the proposals. The Agency assigned each person a number used to identify who was assigned to which task and to track performance of evaluation tasks. The procurement officer sent the evaluators a brief memo of instructions. It provided dates; described logistics of evaluation; emphasized the importance of independent evaluation; and prohibited communicating about the ITN and the proposals with anyone other than the procurement office. The Agency also conducted an instructional session for evaluators. Evaluator 1, Marie Donnelly: During the procurement, Ms. Donnelly was the Agency’s Chief of the Bureau of Medicaid Quality. She held this position for five years before resigning. This bureau bore responsibility for ensuring that the current SMMC plans met their contract requirements for quality and quality improvement measures. Her role specifically included oversight of Specialty Plans. Evaluator 2, Erica Floyd Thomas: Ms. Thomas is the chief of the Bureau of Medicaid Policy. She has worked for the Agency since 2001. Her Medicaid experience includes developing policies for hospitals, community behavioral health, residential treatment, and contract oversight. Before serving as bureau chief, she served as an Agency administrator from 2014 through 2017. Ms. Thomas oversaw the policy research and development process for all Medicaid medical, behavioral, dental, facility, and clinic coverage policies to ensure they were consistent with the state Plan and federal Medicaid requirements. Evaluator 3, Rachel LaCroix, Ph.D.: Dr. LaCroix is an administrator in the Agency’s Performance Evaluation and Research Unit. She has worked for the Agency since 2003. All her positions have been in the Medicaid program. Dr. LaCroix has served in her current position since 2011. She works with the performance measures and surveys that the current SMMC providers report to the Agency. Dr. LaCroix is a nationally recognized expert on healthcare quality metrics like HEDIS. She is also an appointee on the National Association of Medicaid Directors’ task force for national performance measures. Evaluator 4, Damon Rich: Mr. Rich has worked for the Agency since April 2009. He is the chief of the Agency’s Bureau of Recipient and Provider Assistance. This bureau interacts directly with AHCA’s current SMMC care providers about any issues they have, and with Medicaid recipients, usually about their eligibility or plan enrollment. Before Mr. Rich was a bureau chief, he worked as a field office manager for the Agency. Mr. Rich’s experience as bureau chief and field office manager includes oversight of the current SMMC Specialty Plans. Evaluator 5. Eunice Medina: Ms. Medina is the chief of the Agency’s Bureau of Medicaid Plan Management, which includes a staff of over 60 individuals, who manage the current SMMC contracts. Her experience and duties essentially encompass all aspects of the current SMMC plans. Ms. Medina started working with the Agency in 2014. Evaluator 6, Devona “DD” Pickle: Ms. Pickle most recently joined the Agency in 2011. She also worked for the Agency from November 2008 through November 2010. Ms. Pickle’s Agency experience all relates in some way to the Medicaid program. Since March 2013, Ms. Pickle has served as an administrator over managed care policy and contract development in the Bureau of Medicaid Policy. Her job duties include working with the current SMMC contractors. Ms. Pickle is also a Florida licensed mental health counselor. Evaluator 7, Tracy Hurd-Alvarez: Ms. Hurd-Alvarez has worked for the Agency’s Medicaid program since 1997. Since 2014, she has been a field office manager, overseeing compliance monitoring for all the current SMMC contractors. Before assuming her current position, Ms. Hurd-Alvarez implemented the LTC SMMC program. Evaluator 8, Gay Munyon: Ms. Munyon is currently the Chief of the Bureau of Medicaid Fiscal Agent Operations. Ms. Munyon began working with the Agency in April 2013. Ms. Munyon’s bureau oversees fulfillment of the Agency’s contract with the current SMMC fiscal agent. Her unit’s responsibilities include systems maintenance and modifications and overseeing the fiscal agent, which answers phone calls, processes claims, and processes applications. Ms. Munyon has 25 years of experience working with the Medicaid program. Evaluator 9, Laura Noyes: Ms. Noyes started working for the Agency in April 2011. Her years of Agency experience all relate to the Medicaid program, including overseeing six current comprehensive managed care plans by identifying trends in contractual non-compliance. Evaluator 10, Brian Meyer: Mr. Meyer is a CPA, who has worked for the Agency in the Medicaid program since 2011. He is currently chief of the Bureau of Medicaid Data Analytics. Mr. Meyer’s primary responsibility is overseeing the capitation rates for the current SMMC contractors. His experience includes Medicaid plan financial statement analysis, surplus requirement calculation analysis and, in general, all types of financial analysis necessary to understand financial performance of the state’s Medicaid plans. Evaluator 11, Ann Kaperak: Since April 2015, Ms. Kaperak has served as an administrator in the Agency’s Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity. Ms. Kaperak’s unit oversees the fraud and abuse efforts of the current SMMC plans. She also worked for the Medicaid program from November 2012 through May 2014. Ms. Kaperak worked as a regulatory compliance manager for Anthem/Amerigroup’s Florida Medicaid program between May 2014 and April 2015. Positive and Community challenge the Agency’s plan selections by questioning the qualifications of the evaluators. The first part of their argument is that the evaluators did not have sufficient knowledge about HIV/AIDS and its treatment. The evidence does not prove the theory. For instance, Positive’s argument relies upon criticizing the amount of clinical experience evaluators had managing patients with HIV/AIDS. That approach minimizes the fact that the managed care plan characteristics involve so much more than disease- specific considerations. For instance, many of the components require determining if the respondent provided required documents, verifying conflict of interest documents, management structure, quality control measures, and the like. General SRCs asked for things like dispute resolution models (SRC 16), claims processing information (SRC 17), and fraud and abuse compliance plans (SRC 31). MMA SRCs included criteria, like telemedicine (SRC 4), demonstrated progress obtaining executed provider agreements (SRC 6), and a credentialing process (SRC 12). Specialty SRCs included criteria like copies of contracts for managed care for the proposed specialty population (SRC 1), specific and detailed criteria defining the proposed specialty population (SRC 4), and the like. The evidence does not prove that disease-specific experience is necessary to evaluate responses to these and other SRCs. SRC 6 involving HEDIS data and SRC 14 involving CAHPS data are two good examples. They required respondents to input data into a spreadsheet. All the evaluators had to do was determine what those numbers showed. Evaluation did not require any understanding of disease or how the measures were created. All the evaluator had to know was the number in the spreadsheet. The second part of the evaluator qualification criticisms is that the evaluators did not give adequate weight to some responses. Positive and Community just disagree with the measures requested and the evaluation of them. They conclude from that disagreement that the evaluators’ qualifications were deficient. The argument is not persuasive. The last sentence of paragraph 69 of Positive’s proposed recommended order exemplifies the criticisms of Positive and Community of the evaluators’ qualifications. It states, “The fact that PHC [Positive] was ranked last among competing HIV plans shows that the SRC evaluators did not understand enough about managing individuals with HIV/AIDs to score its proposal competently.” The argument is circular and “ipse dixit”. It does not carry the day. The collective knowledge and experience of the evaluators, with a total of 128 years of Medicaid experience, made them capable of reasonably evaluating the managed care plan proposals, including the Specialty plan proposals. The record certainly does not prove otherwise. EVALUATION PROCESS The Agency assigned the evaluators to the SRCs that it determined they were qualified to evaluate and score. The Agency did not assign entire responses to an evaluator for review. Instead it elected a piecemeal review process assigning various evaluators to various sections, the SRCs of each response. Paragraph 30 of the Agency’s proposed recommended order describes this decision as follows: Although the ITN had contemplated ranking each vendor by evaluator, based on an example in the ITN, such ranking presumed a process where all evaluators scored all or nearly all of the responses to the ITN, which had occurred in the procurement five years ago. In this procurement, each evaluator reviewed only a subset of SRCs based on their knowledge, and experience; therefore, ranking by evaluator was not logical because each had a different maximum point score. The initial SRC scoring assignments were: General SRCs 1 through 4, LTC SRCs 1 and 2, and Specialty SRC 1: Marie Donnelly, Laura Noyes, and Brian Meyer. General SRCs 5 through 8, MMA SRCs 1 through 7, LTC SRCs 3 and 4, and Specialty SRCs 1 and 2: Marie Donnelly, Erica Floyd- Thomas, and Rachel LaCroix. General SRCs 9 through 14, MMA SRCs 8 through 11, LTC SRCs 5 through 7, and Specialty SRC 4: Damon Rich, Eunice Medina, and DD Pickle. General SRCs 15 through 17, MMA SRCs 12 and 13, and LTC SRCs 8 through 10: Damon Rich, Tracy Hurd-Alvarez, Gay Munyon. General SRCs 18 through 25, MMA SRCs 14 through 20, LTC SRCs 11 and 12, and Specialty SRC 5: Erica Floyd-Thomas, Eunice Medina, and DD Pickle. General SRCs 26 through 33 and LTC SRC 13: Gay Munyon, Ann Kaperak, and Brian Meyer. General SRCs 34 through 36 and MMA SRC 21: Marie Donnelly, Rachel LaCroix, and Tracy Hurd-Alvarez. The ranking process presented in the ITN and described in paragraphs 62-64, contemplated ranking each respondent by evaluator. The Agency carried this process over from an earlier procurement. In this procurement, despite what the ITN said, the Agency assigned responsibilities so that each evaluator reviewed only a subset of SRCs. Therefore, the ranking of responses by evaluator presented in the ITN could not work. It was not even possible because no one evaluator reviewed a complete response and because each SRC had a different maximum point score. Instead, the Agency, contrary to the terms of the ITN, ranked proposals by averaging the “total point scores” assigned by all of the evaluators. The Agency considered issuing an addendum advising the parties of the change. The addendum would have informed the respondents and provided them an opportunity to challenge the change. The Agency elected not to issue an addendum. EVALUATION AND SCORING The evaluators began scoring on November 6, 2017, with a completion deadline of December 29, 2017. The 11 evaluators had to score approximately 230 separate responses to the ITNs. The evaluators had to score 67,175 separate items to complete the scoring for all responses for all regions for all types of plans. No one at the Agency evaluated how much time it should take to score a particular item. None of the parties to this proceeding offered persuasive evidence to support a finding that scoring any particular item would or should take a specific length of time or that scoring all of the responses would or should take a specific length of time. Evaluators scored the responses in conference room F at the Agency’s headquarters. This secure room was the exclusive location for evaluation and scoring. Each evaluator had a dedicated workspace equipped with all tools and resources necessary for the task. The workspaces included a computer terminal for each evaluator. The system allowed evaluators to review digital copies of the ITN and proposals and to enter evaluation points in spreadsheets created for the purpose of recording scores. Evaluators also had access to hard copies of the proposals and the ITN. The Agency required evaluators to sign in and to sign out. The sign-in and sign-out sheets record the significant amount of time the evaluators spent evaluating proposals. Evaluators were not permitted to communicate with each other about the responses. To minimize distractions, the Agency prohibited cell phones, tablets and other connected devices in the room. The Agency also authorized and encouraged the evaluators to delegate their usual responsibilities. Agency proctors observed the room and evaluators throughout the scoring process. They were available to answer general and procedural questions and to ensure that the evaluators signed in and signed out. A log sheet documented how much time each evaluator spent in the scoring conference room. Some evaluators took extensive notes. For example, Ms. Median took over 200 pages of notes. Similarly, Ms. Munyon took nearly 400 pages of typewritten notes. The evaluators worked hard. None, other than Dr. LaCroix, testified that they did not have enough time to do their job. The computer system also automatically tracked the evaluators’ progress. Tracking reports showed the number of items assigned to each evaluator and the number of scoring items completed. The first status report was generated on December 8, 2017, approximately halfway through the scheduled scoring. At that time, only 28 percent of the scoring items were complete. Ms. Barrett usually ran the status reports in the morning. She made them available to the evaluators to review. The pace of evaluation caused concern about timely completion and prompted discussions of ways to accelerate scoring. Because it was clear that the majority of the evaluators would not complete scoring their SRCs by December 29, 2017, the Agency extended the scoring deadline to January 12, 2018. It also extended the hours for conference room use. Most respondents filed proposals for more than one type of plan and more than one region. This fact combined with the provision in the instructions saying that all statewide SRC responses must be identical for each region and that scores would transfer to each applicable region’s score sheets, enabled evaluators to score many SRCs just once. The system would then auto-populate the scores to the same SRC for all proposals by that respondent. This time saving measure permitted scoring on many of the items to be almost instantaneous after review of the first response to an SRC. The fact that so many respondents submitted proposals for so many regions and types of plans provided the Agency another opportunity for time-saving. The Agency loaded Adobe Pro on the evaluators’ computers as a timesaving measure. This program allowed the evaluators to compare a bidder’s Comprehensive Plan Proposal to the same company’s regional and Specialty Plan proposals. If the Adobe Pro comparison feature showed that the proposal response was the same for each plan, the Agency permitted evaluators to score the response once and assign the same score for each item where the respondent provided the same proposal. This speeded scoring. It, however, meant that for SRCs where evaluators did this, that they were not reviewing the SRC response in the specific context of the specialty plan population, each of which had specific and limited characteristics that made them different from the broader General and MMA plan populations. This is significant because so many SRCs required narrative responses where context would matter. There is no Specialty SRCs A-4 instruction requirement for specialty plans analogous to the requirement that responses for statewide SRCs must be identical for each region. In other words, the instructions do not say all SRCs marked as statewide must be identical for each specialty plan proposal and that the Agency will evaluate each Statewide SRC once and transfer the score to each applicable Specialty Plan score. In fact, according to the procurement officer, the Agency expected that evaluators would separately evaluate and score the statewide SRCs for Comprehensive Plans and for Specialty Plans, even if the same bidder submitted them. Despite the Agency’s expectation and the absence of an authorizing provision in the ITN, many evaluators, relying on the Adobe Pro tool, copied the SRC scores they gave to a respondent’s comprehensive plan proposal to its specialty plan proposal if the respondent submitted the same response to an SRC for a Comprehensive Plan and a Specialty Plan. For instance, Ms. Thomas (Evaluator 2) and Ms. Munyon (Evaluator 8) did this to save time. Ms. Donnelly (Evaluator 1) did this even when the comprehensive and specialty responses were not identical. This does not amount to the independent evaluation of the responses pledged by the ITN. On separate days, Evaluator 1 scored 1,315 items, 954 items, 779 items and 727 items. On separate days, Evaluator 2 scored 613 items, 606 items, 720 items, 554 items and 738 items. Evaluator 4 scored 874 items on one day. Evaluator 5 scored 813 items in one day. Evaluator 6 scored 1,001 items in one day. Evaluator 8 scored 635 items in one day. The record does not identify the items scored. It also does not permit determining how many of the item scores resulted from auto-population or assignment of scores based upon previous scoring of an identical response. It bears repeating, however, that the record does not support any finding on how long scoring the response to one SRC or an entire response could reasonably be expected to take. Even with the extended scoring period and time-saving measures, the Agency concluded that Evaluator 3 would not be able to finish all of the SRCs assigned to her. Rather than extend the deadline for scoring a second time, the Agency decided to reassign the nine of Evaluator 3’s SRCs that she had not begun scoring to two other evaluators. The Agency did not include scores of other SRCs for which Evaluator 3 had not completed scoring. The Agency only counted Evaluator 3’s scores for an SRC if she scored the SRC for everyone. The result was that only two people scored nine of the Specialty Plan SRCs. The Agency did not reassign all of Evaluator 3’s SRCs’. It only reassigned the SRCs to evaluators who were qualified to evaluate the items, who were not already assigned those items to score, and who had already finished or substantially completed their own evaluations. The decision to reassign the SRCs was not based on any scoring that had already been completed. The Agency did not allow changes to data submitted by any of the vendors. It allowed vendors to exchange corrupted electronic files for ones which could be opened and allowed vendors to exchange electronic files to match up with the paper copies that had been submitted. The Agency allowed Community to correct its submission where it lacked a signature on its transmittal letter and allowed Community to exchange an electronic document that would not open. It did not allow Community to change its reported HEDIS scores, which were submitted in the decimal form required by the instructions. Community erred in the numbers that it reported. There is no evidence showing that other vendors received a competitive or unfair advantage over Community in the Agency’s review of the SMI Specialty Plan submission for Region 10. There was no evidence that the Agency allowed any other vendors to change any substantive information in their submittals for that proposed specialty in that region. HEIDIS ISSUES Positive asserts that Simply’s proposal is non- responsive because Simply submitted HEDIS data from the general Medicaid population in response to SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14. Positive contends that Simply obtained a competitive advantage by supplying non-HIV/AIDS HEDIS data in response to SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 because HIV/AIDS patients are generally a sicker group and require more care and because some HEDIS measures cannot be reported for an HIV/AIDS population. HEDIS stands for Healthcare Effectiveness and Data Information Set and is a set of standardized performance measures widely used in the healthcare industry. The instructions for both SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 provide, in relevant part: The respondent shall describe its experience in achieving quality standards with populations similar to the target population described in this solicitation. The respondent shall include in table format, the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible), the respondent’s results for the HEDIS measures specified below for each of the last two (2) years (CY 2015/HEDIS 2016 and CY 2016/HEDIS 2017) for the respondent’s three (3) largest Medicaid Contracts (measured by number of enrollees). If the respondent does not have HEDIS results for at least three (3) Medicaid Contracts, the respondent shall provide commercial HEDIS measures for the respondent’s largest Contracts. If the Respondent has Florida Medicaid HEDIS results, it shall include the Florida Medicaid experience as one (1) of three (3) states for the last two (2) years. (JE 1 at 75 (SRC 6); JE 1 at 158 (MMA SRC 14)). SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 instruct respondents to provide HEDIS measures for “the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible).” Id.. TANF, ABD, and dual eligible are eligibility classifications for the Medicaid population. The Agency sought information regarding the target Medicaid-eligible population, even from respondents proposing a Specialty Plan, because Specialty Plans are required to serve all of the healthcare needs of their recipients, not just the needs related to the criteria making those recipients eligible for the Specialty Plan. Following the instructions in SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14, Simply provided HEDIS data from the Medicaid-eligible population for its three largest Medicaid contracts as measured by the total number of enrollees. For the requested Florida HEDIS data, Simply utilized legacy HEDIS data from Amerigroup Florida, Inc., a Comprehensive Plan. Amerigroup and Simply had merged in October of 2017. Therefore, at the time of submission of Simply’s proposal, the HEDIS data from Amerigroup Florida was the data from Simply’s largest Medicaid contract in Florida for the period requested by the SRCs. Positive asserts that the Agency impermissibly altered scoring criteria after the proposals were submitted when the Agency corrected technical issues within a HEDIS Measurement Tool spreadsheet. SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 required the submission of numeric data for the requested HEDIS performance measures. To simplify submission of the numeric data for the requested HEDIS performance measures, the Agency required respondents to utilize a HEDIS Measurement Tool spreadsheet. The evaluation criteria for SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 provided that respondents will be awarded points if the reported HEDIS measures exceed the national or regional mean for such performance measures. Some respondents, including Positive, entered “N/A,” “small denominator,” or other text inputs into the HEDIS Measurement Tool. During the evaluation and scoring process, the Agency discovered that if a respondent input any text into the HEDIS Measurement Tool, the tool would assign random amounts of points, even though respondents had not input measureable, numeric data. The Agency reasonably resolved the problem by removing any text and inserting a zero in place of the text. The correction of the error in the HEDIS Measurement Tool prevented random points from being awarded to respondents and did not alter scores in any way contrary to the ITN. It was reasonable and fair to all respondents.
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 rejecting all r esponses to the ITNs to provide a Medicaid Managed Care plan for patients with HIV/AIDS in Regions 10 and 11. 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 inviting Community to negotiate to provide Medicaid Managed Care plan in Region 10 for patients with serious mental illness. 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 inviting Community to negotiate to provide a Medicaid Managed Care plan in Region 10 for patients with serious mental illness. 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 inviting Community to negotiate to provide a Medicaid Managed Care plan in Region 10 for c hild w elfare specialty services. 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 awarding Wellcare of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Staywell Health Plan of Florida, a contract for a specialty Medicaid Managed Care plan for patients with Serious Mental Illness in Region 10. 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 dismissing the Petition in Case No. 18-3513. DONE AND ENTERED this day of , , in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 day of , .
The Issue Are the Medicaid payment claims of Respondent Alternative Care Staffing, Inc. (Alternative), for companion care services authorized by support plans and waiver support coordinators and provided in the community to recipients residing in group homes reimbursable services under the Home and Community-Based Wavier (HCB Waiver) program? Are Alternative’s Medicaid service claims for allegedly unauthorized activities reimbursable under the HCB Waiver program, or may the Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency) recoup payment for the claims? Did Alternative receive payment for services provided by ineligible staff? Are Alternative’s allegedly overlapping Medicaid service claims actually overlapping? Did the Agency meet: (1) its burden of proof for imposing fines, and (2) its statutory obligations before imposing fines? Whether or how much, due to mitigating factors, the Agency can fine Alternative for the items identified as overpayments in Agency’s Exhibit 6, Amended Final Audit Report dated May 25, 2011; subsequently, modified in Agency’s Exhibit 7, Current Overpayment Calculations and Agency Work Papers; and finally modified during the hearing as shown in Exhibit A to the proposed recommended orders and this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Background The Medicaid program is a federal and state partnership that pays the costs of providing health care and related services to qualified individuals, including people with developmental disabilities. The Agency is the single state agency authorized to make payments for medical assistance and related services under Florida’s Medicaid program. § 409.902, Fla. Stat. (2013). The Legislature charged the Agency with overseeing the activities of Medicaid recipients and their providers and with recouping overpayments. §§ 409.913 and 409.913(1)(e), Fla. Stat. Florida law defines an “overpayment” as “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 practice, fraud, abuse, or mistake.” During the relevant time period, Florida law defined “abuse” as “provider practices that are inconsistent with generally accepted business or medical practices and that result in an unnecessary cost to the Medicaid program or in reimbursement for goods or services that are medically unnecessary, upcoded, or fail to meet professionally recognized standard of health care.” § 401.913(1)(a), Fla. Stat. “Abuse may also include a violation of state or federal law, rule or regulation.” (Pet. Ex. 11, Provider General Handbook (Jan. 2007), p. 1083; Pet. Ex. 11, Provider General Handbook (July 2008), p. 1092). This definition is much broader than the everyday definition of abuse as a “corrupt practice or custom.”1/ “Overpayment includes 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 claims, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse or mistake.” (Pet. Ex. 11, Provider General Handbook (Jan. 2007), p. 1083; Pet. Ex. 11, Provider General Handbook (July 2008), p. 1092). As part of the Agency’s fulfillment of the statutory directive to investigate overpayments, the Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity (MPI) in the Office of the Inspector General routinely conducts audits. A Medicaid provider is a person or entity that has voluntarily chosen to provide and be reimbursed for goods or services provided to eligible Medicaid recipients. A provider’s participation requires an agreement with the Agency to provide services. Alternative has been a Medicaid provider since 2004. Florida’s Medicaid program includes a program for people with developmental disabilities. It uses the state and federal Medicaid funds for home and community-based services. The program is known as the Home and Community-Based Waiver or HCB Waiver. Florida’s Agency for Persons with Disabilities (APD) administers the HCB Waiver pursuant to statute. APD is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the HCB Waiver. APD is the primary point of contact and source of information for HCB Waiver providers, such as Alternative. The Interagency Agreement (Agreement) between the Agency and APD establishes the relationship between the two agencies and their obligations and roles in this mutual undertaking. Alternative and other providers are not parties to the Agreement The Agreement’s Delegation of Authority for Waiver Operation, Section B(2) (R. Ex. B), states: Pursuant to the approved development disabilities home and community-based waivers, [the Agency] has authorized [APD] to operate the waivers on a day-to-day basis, in accordance with this agreement. This agreement memorializes an arrangement under which APD will operate and make appropriate decisions based upon approved policy on behalf of and under the oversight of [the Agency]. The Agreement obligates both agencies to operate the waiver in accordance with laws, rules, regulations, and handbooks. Section B(4)(c) of the Agreement requires the Agency to coordinate with APD “on all [waiver] administrative rules, amendments to rules, policies or regulations that pertain to the waiver.” Section B(4)(g) places responsibility for recouping overpayments to HCB Waiver providers on the Agency. Section B(4)(a) reserves to the Agency “final authority on all policies, procedures, rules, regulations, manuals, handbooks, and statewide quality assurance monitoring procedures pertaining to the development disabilities waivers.” Section B(5)(e) requires APD to advise the Agency in advance of any proposed regulations or manuals developed by APD. Section 5(g) obligates APD to assure payments to “providers are reconciled based upon individual cost plans in the DD [Developmental Disability] and F/SL [Family and Support Living] Waiver programs and are within the annual program budgets.” Under the HCB Waiver, recipients working with independent waiver service coordinators plan their services according to the recipient’s needs. The result is a detailed support or cost plan. The support plan articulates the services and the goals for each type of service needed. It is updated annually. A service authorization is developed from each support plan to specify the amount, by time and dollars, approved for each type of service. The service authorization documents also identify which Medicaid-contracted providers will provide each of the approved services. APD reviews and approves the support plans. The 2007 and 2008 versions of the Developmental Disabilities Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook (DD Handbook) specify in chapter 2-5 that in order for a recipient to receive a service, the service must be identified on the recipient’s support plan approved by APD. Providers, like Alternative, rely upon the support plans and service authorizations to determine what services to provide and if the services are authorized for payment. At all times material to this case, Alternative has been a provider of HCB Waiver services to Medicaid recipients, pursuant to a Medicaid provider contract with the Agency and a Medicaid Waiver Services Agreement with APD. Alternative provides most services through independent contractors. The complex requirements governing providers in the Medicaid program are explicated in rules of the Agency and in the Medicaid Provider General Handbook, adopted by rule. More requirements for providers in the HCB Waiver are imposed by rules of APD and the DD Handbook, developed by APD and the Agency, and adopted by Agency rule. For the time period in this case, the June 2007 and June 2008 versions of the Medicaid Provider General Handbook were in effect. For the time period of this case, the June 2007 and December 2008 versions of the DD Handbook were in effect. The Chase The Medicaid payment process differs from a typical commercial transaction. Robi Olmstead, administrator for the Agency’s Office of the Inspector General, Medicaid Program Integrity, described the process as “pay and chase.” The Agency accepts claims for payment at face value with very little review and promptly pays them. But the Agency has the authority to review claims long after payment and seek recoupment, “chase,” if it determines the claim was not proper. The Agency’s MPI office does the “chasing” by conducting provider audits. In 2011, the Agency audited Alternative’s claims for the period January 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009. Kristen Koelle, who conducted the audit, selected the time period to take into account the fact that Alternative was a relatively new provider and had a 12-month window of opportunity to submit new claims or void submitted claims. Typically, the Agency audits a two-to-three year period of payments for providers with a longer history. On November 4, 2010, the Agency sent a letter requesting records from Alternative and advising that it was conducting an audit. The letter sought records for 35 of Alternative’s 85 Medicaid recipients to use as a cluster sample. Alternative responded promptly and provided very organized records. The majority of issues identified in the audit involved documentation, not a failure to provide services. The Agency uses a statistical formula to extrapolate overpayments from the records and claims of the samples. The Agency issued a Preliminary Audit Report concluding that Alternative owed $719,680.09 for overpayments for wrongly made and paid claims. After a typical process of communication, supplementation of records, and review of documents, the Agency issued a Final Audit Report reducing the amount to $452,821.65. By the time the hearing started, the Agency had reduced the amount in an Amended Final Audit Report to $155,747.97 and had reduced the proposed fine from $90,564.33 to $31,149.59. By law, the Agency’s audit report creates prima facie proof of overpayments, which a provider has a right to dispute. In this case, there is no dispute about the acceptability or application of the Agency’s statistical formula for extrapolation. The disputes are about which representative claims are properly input into the extrapolation formula. During the hearing, Alternative agreed to several additional claims. The parties jointly prepared an Appendix to their proposed recommended orders identifying the remaining disputed claims. It is attached as Exhibit A to this Recommended Order and adopted by reference. These are the claims the Agency maintains should be used in the formula to determine the full amount of the asserted overpayments. Alternative disagrees. The remaining claims fall into four categories. They are: (1) companion services provided to recipients living in group homes; (2) unauthorized activities; (3) overlapping of support services; and (4) ineligible staff. Services are measured in “units of service” of 15 minutes each. Companion Services for Recipients Living In Group Homes During the time period when the June 2007 DD Handbook was in effect, Alternative collectively provided and was paid for 640 units of service to four waiver recipients who resided in licensed residential facilities or group homes. The recipients are identified in this record as Recipients 7, 13, 14, and 25. Companion services are non-medical care supervision and socialization activities provided to an adult individually. They may be activities such as assistance with grocery shopping, housekeeping, or visiting the library. (DD Handbook, 2007, Chap. 2-27). The June 2007 version of the DD Handbook states: “Recipient’s [sic] living in licensed residential settings, excluding foster homes, are not eligible to receive these [companion] services.” (DD Handbook, 2007, Chap. 2-28). The December 2008 version of the DD Handbook states that companion care services may be provided to residents of a licensed group or foster home. APD approved the support plans for Recipients 7, 13, 14, and 25. The plans plainly stated that each recipient lived in a residential living facility (group home). The support plans also plainly identified companion services among the services to be provided. (Pet. Ex. 8, pp. 491-501; 591-604; 628-636; and 857-864.) In addition, each recipient’s waiver support coordinator provided a service authorization for the companion services. Alternative provided companion services as indicated in the APD approved support plans and the service authorizations. Alternative’s consistent experience with providing companion services to residents in living facilities was that APD approved and paid for providing those services under the June 2007 DD Handbook. Because of the issues raised in the audit, in an e-mail dated May 19, 2011, Joyce Rowe, president of Alternative, wrote Denise Oetinger, regional program supervisor for APD, asking about authorized services during the period January 2008 to June 2009. Ms. Oetinger was an APD liaison to providers who Alternative relied upon to explain the many requirements and conditions of the DD Handbook. Ms. Rowe’s e-mail said: In our preliminary [Agency audit] review we had four individuals which Alt Care received services authorizations for that lived in a group home [stet]. We provided the services out in the community. Kristen Koelle with AHCA Audit Recovery stated in the handbook of limitations up to 12/3/2008 we were not allowed to provide companion services to any individual living in a licensed facility. Of course they wanted to recoup thousands of dollars from our company. Do we have any special provisions or documentation why we were getting these service authorizations sent to us and getting paid for a service which was unauthorized? I called one of the support coordinators because they are responsible in a sense for sending the authorizations. I was told to e-mail you in hope for some answers. Ms. Oetinger replied2/: Ms. Rowe, Companion can be provided to an individual living in a licensed facility, but it must be delivered in the community. So they must leave the home they live in and do something outside the home. This has not changed from handbook to handbook. I will ask that our inter-agency liaison communicate with Kristen Koelle. Thank you for bringing this to our attention and I will get back to you as I have more information. In light of the Agreement, the way in which the Agency and APD held themselves out to providers, the relationship between APD and providers, the practice of relying upon APD for guidance about the HCB Waiver, the approval of the support plans, and the subsequent issuance of service authorizations, Alternative reasonably relied upon APD-approved support plans and the waiver support coordinator-provided service authorizations when providing and obtaining payment for companion services to Recipients 7, 13, 14, and 25. In addition, the weight of the persuasive evidence establishes that Recipients 7, 13, 14, and 25 are the only recipients living in a licensed residential facility for which Alternative received payments for companion services provided during the audit period. Consequently, using those claims to extrapolate to a recipient-wide population is not factually supported. Ineligible Staff Alternative employee Ben Alvarez provided personal care assistance and companion services to Recipient 3. He also provided in-home support services to Recipient 15. For the time period during which Mr. Alvarez provided personal care assistance services, the December 2008 DD Handbook was in effect. Chapter 1-25 required individuals providing the service to “have at least one year of experience working in a medical, psychiatric, nursing or childcare setting or working with recipients who have a developmental disability.” It permitted substitution of specified educational achievements for the experience. Alternative did not have documentation that Mr. Alvarez had the specified alternative educational achievements. It did not have documentation that Mr. Alvarez had worked in a medical, psychiatric, nursing, or childcare setting. Alternative did have documentation that Mr. Alvarez had six years’ experience caring for an adult with developmental disabilities, providing services, including personal care, hygiene, grooming, bathing, and feeding. This individual was a relative of Mr. Alvarez. Nothing in the documentation establishes that the relative Mr. Alvarez was caring for was a Medicaid recipient. Deposition testimony establishes that the individual was a waiver recipient at the time of the deposition, February 13, 2014. But it does not establish that he was a recipient at the time Mr. Alvarez provided services. The deposition is also not part of the documentation maintained by Alternative. In sum, the weight of the persuasive evidence shows Alternative did not have documentation that Mr. Alvarez met the experience or substitute educational requirements of chapter 1-25. For the time period during which Mr. Alvarez provided companion services, the December 2008 DD Handbook was in effect. Chapter 1-18 required individuals providing the service to “have at least one year of experience working in a medical, psychiatric, nursing or childcare setting or working with recipients who have a developmental disability.” It also permitted substitution of specified educational achievements for the experience. The weight of the persuasive evidence shows that Alternative did not document that Mr. Alvarez met the experience or substitute educational requirements of chapter 1-18. Chapter 1-23 of the DD Handbook imposes the same experience and substitution education requirements for providers of in-home support services as required for companion and personal care services. As with them, the weight of the persuasive evidence shows that Mr. Alvarez did not meet the experience or substitute educational requirements. An Alternative employee, known as Ora or Paul Richmond, provided 16 units of companion services to Recipient 11 on March 2, 2009. At that time, the December 2008 DD Handbook was in effect. Chapter 1-18, above, established the experience and requirements for providers of the service. Alternative’s documentation establishes that Mr. Richmond lived with, and helped care for, his disabled father from 2006 to 2008. Among other things, he helped his father with cooking, cleaning, laundry, and bill paying. Alternative’s documentation does not identify what disability Mr. Richmond’s father had, and it does not indicate that Mr. Richmond’s father was a Medicaid recipient. The weight of the persuasive evidence shows Alternative did not document that Mr. Richmond met the experience or substitute educational requirements of chapter 1–18. The Agency paid Alternative for companion services provided by Christopher Rose to Recipients 13 and 14. Mr. Rose provided the services during a period governed by the 2007 DD Handbook. The companion provider requirements of chapter 1-18 of that DD Handbook are the same as those of chapter 1-18 of the 2008 version. Alternative’s documentation for Mr. Rose showed that he had worked as a private-duty companion for an individual with retardation for approximately three years. The documentation did not indicate who the individual was, whether the individual was a Medicaid recipient, or where the services were provided. The weight of the persuasive evidence shows Alternative did not document that Mr. Rose met the experience or substitute educational requirements of chapter 1-18. Documented Activity Support for Billing The Agency paid Alternative for 16 units of service for companion services provided to Recipient 6 on March 27, 2008. The sole documented description for the activity involved was “enjoyed attending alternative office party.” It does not document what the activities were or where the party was. Ms. Rowe testified that the party was not accurately described and that the office social was held in Bradenton, Florida, at Bayshore Gardens. But that is not what the documentation shows. The support plan for Recipient 6 provided that the companion provider “will help [the recipient] participate in activities outside of his home. [Recipient] will also explore volunteer opportunities available to him.” This is in support of the larger goal of teaching him to interact in the community. The documentation for the office party does not document a connection between the support plan and the activity. The Agency paid Alternative for 14 units of companion services provided to Recipient 12 on April 16, 2008. The support plan goals for Recipient 12 are to stay home, be active with his family, identify someone to care for him, go out into the community, be involved in community activities, maintain a healthy weight, and maintain good dental health. Alternative’s documentation for the services on April 16 reports only “[a]ss. with indoor activities.” It provides no other descriptions of the activities. The information is not sufficient to determine what relationship, if any, the activities had to the recipient’s goals. Ms. Rowe testified that the recipient had gone to his community clubhouse that day. But that is not what the entry says, in contrast to an April 17, 2008, entry which specified clubhouse activities. In addition, Ms. Rowe was not the service provider and did not provide information about how she knew what that individual did that day. Her testimony was not persuasive. The Agency paid Alternative for 14 units of service for companion services provided to Recipient 12 on April 30, 2008. Alternative’s documentation for the services on April 30, 2008, reports only “[a]ss. with activities at home.” It provides no other descriptions of the activities. The information is not sufficient to determine what relationship, if any, the activities had to the recipient’s community-oriented goals. The Agency paid Alternative for 20 units of service for companion services provided to Recipient 18 on January 7, 2008. The recipient’s support plan for companion services focuses on going out into the community to eat, visit parks, go to places of interest, and attend parties. Alternative’s documentation for the services describes the activities from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., as “[p]repare lunch, ate 100%, change underwear, small walk, watch some TV by request, lie for a rest on sofa.” Lunch preparation and changing clothes are not companion services. They are personal care assistance services. The Agency reasonably deducted two units of service for these claims. Also on January 7, 2008, a different provider of companion services describes the activities from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., as “watched t.v. [and] chilled out today.” These activities are not activities related to the companion services of the support plan. There is no documentation supporting the claim for payment for the time between 4:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. The Agency reasonably denied payment for two units of service for this time period. The Agency paid Alternative for 20 units of service for companion services provided to Recipient 18 on March 1, 2009. The documentation for those services states only: “We stayed in due to weather.” It provides no information about the weather, what activities the recipient engaged in while “in,” or why the weather precluded all community activities. The documentation does not support the claim for billing 20 units of service. Unauthorized Activities The Agency paid Alternative for 12 units of service for in-home support services provided to Recipient 15 on February 21, 2008. The recipient’s support plan described his goals to be advanced by in-home support services as “learn how to better take care of his apartment, cook for himself, clean his apartment, do his laundry, and learn to make independent life decision[s].” Alternative’s documentation describes the day’s activities as “[Recipient] and I went to the library. Then watch [sic] a little TV. I left early because he said he was tired.” Watching television is not an activity within the authorized in-home support services. It is reasonable to reduce the claimed units of service by one to adjust for the time spent providing an unauthorized service. The Agency paid Alternative for 20 units of service for in-home support services provided to Recipient 15 on April 2, 2008. Alternative’s documentation from the caregiver describing the services states: “[Recipient] and I went to the store to pick up several items. Then came back to his place and played dominos.” The weight of the persuasive evidence establishes that there is no connection between playing dominos and the services for which in-home support was authorized. Deducting one unit of service from the services paid for to account for time spent playing dominos is reasonable. The Agency paid Alternative for 20 units of service for in-home support services provided to Recipient 15 on June 25, 2009. The caregiver provided multiple services that day. The documented activities included watching two movies, Bolt and the Spiderwick Chronicles. The weight of the persuasive evidence establishes that there is no connection between watching the movies and the services for which in-home support was authorized. Deducting the claimed units of service to Recipient 15 by one, as the Agency recommends, is a reasonable accounting for the time spent watching the movies. On February 20, 2008, Alternative billed for 32 units of service for companion services for Recipient 26. The support plan for Recipient 26 identifies Alternative as providing the companion services for his goal to “want to do some volunteer work and learn how to socialize with others [sic] people that will not take advantage of me.” Alternative’s documentation for the companion services on February 26, 2008, includes “doing laundry at home and babysitting nephew.” These activities are not within the scope of the support plan for companion services or directed to a related goal. Deducting a unit of service for Recipient 26 on February 20, 2008, by one to account for the laundry and babysitting is reasonable. On January 22, 2008, Alternative billed for 24 units of service for companion services for Recipient 33. The recipient’s support plan lists the following goals that require companion services: “work on building practical skills, making choices, and verbally communicating opinions, wants and needs to others. I want to continue learning to be safe within [t]his community.” Alternative’s documentation to support payment describes the day’s activities as “[t]ook [Recipient] to the Library, [illegible] Target, Dollar, [illegible], watched a movie at his house.” Watching television at the recipient’s house does not fall within the scope of the Recipient’s companion services. Deducting a unit of service for that day by one to account for the time spent watching a movie is reasonable. Overlapping and Unsupported Claims The Agency paid Alternative for respite care to Recipient 16 from noon to 6:00 p.m., 34 units of service, on March 3, 2009. The narrative by Van Greenlaw for the respite care log entry on March 3, 2009, reports: “I arrived today got lunch ready, he went to the gym, came back, plays some of his games, after that he got ready to go to church with [illegible], day ends.” The work hours are changed by strike-throughs to 1:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on another copy of the log. The log does not show the date of the change or who made the change. The personal care assistance service log for March 3 shows Mr. Greenlaw as working from noon to 6:00 p.m. Another copy of the personal care assistance log shows a struck-through revision indicating that personal care services were provided between noon and 1:30 p.m. The log does not show the date of the change or indicate who made the change. The revised service logs and the invoice for the week’s services by Mr. Greenlaw do not reconcile. The invoice shows a total of 2.5 hours (10 units of service) of companion services from 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. and 4.5 hours (18 units of service) respite care from 2:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Pet. Ex. 8, p. 752). There are no logs documenting provision of companion care services. Alternative billed for 18 units of respite service for March 3, 2009, and six units of service for companion services, not the personal care assistance services identified in the log. (Koelle, Tr. at 148-149, Pet. Ex. 752). In addition to the reconciliation inconsistency, the invoice has a math error. The actual amount of time between 2:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. is only 3.5 hours (14 units of service) for respite care, not the invoiced 4.5 hours. Alternative concedes one hour of overbilling. It offers no explanation for billing for companion services when the only record of services is for personal care and respite care. The documentation only supports billing for 14 units of respite care service on March 3, 2009, for Recipient 16. Therefore, the billable units of service for Recipient 16 on March 3, 2009, should be reduced by 20, from 34 to 14, when applying the Agency’s extrapolation formula. Training of Ora Richmond Alternative hired Ora (Paul) Richmond as a caregiver on February 7, 2009. The first date that there is a record of him providing recipient services is March 2, 2009. Mr. Richmond received his zero tolerance training on March 10, 2009. He received his “Core Competency” training on January 10, 2010. The Agency maintains that Mr. Richmond did not have the training required by the applicable DD Handbook when he provided services on March 2, 2009, and that the 16 units of service for that day should be disallowed. The Agency refers to the December 3, 2008, DD Handbook. The handbook took effect on December 3, 2008. The provision, section 2.1(H), imposing the new zero tolerance training requirement, provided: “All direct service providers hired after 90 days from the effective date of this rule are required to complete the Agency for Persons with Disabilities developed Zero Tolerance Training course prior to rendering direct care services (as a pre-service training activity).” Mr. Richmond was hired less than 90 days from the effective date of the requirement. Section 2.1(G) of the provision requiring “Core Competency” training stated: “All direct service providers are required to complete training in the APD’s Direct Care Core Competencies Training, or an equivalent curriculum approved by APD within 90 days of employment or enrollment to provide the service.” The 90th day after Mr. Richmond’s employment was May 8, 2009. Therefore, he was not in violation of the core competency requirement when he provided services to Recipient 11 on March 2, 2009. However, as determined in Findings of Fact 50 through 52, he did not have the experience required to serve as a caregiver.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration recalculate the amounts to be recouped applying the Procedure Codes, units of service, and amount per unit of service, as shown in the Appendix, with the following adjustments: The Agency will not include in recoupment calculations, for the reason that Alternative provided the services to residents of a licensed residential facility, any payments made for companion services provided to Recipients 7, 13, 14, and 25. The Agency will include in recoupment calculations the amounts and units of service paid to Alternative for Mr. Alvarez’s companion and personal care assistance services to Recipient 3 and his in-home support services to Recipient 15, as shown in the Appendix. The Agency will include in recoupment calculations the amounts and units of service paid to Alternative for Mr. Richmond’s services to Recipients 11, as shown in the Appendix. The Agency will include in recoupment calculations the amounts and units of service paid to Alternative for Mr. Rose’s companion services to Recipients 13 and 14, as shown in the Appendix. The Agency will include in recoupment calculations the amounts and units of service paid to Alternative for the 16 units of service shown in the Appendix, as provided to Recipient 6 on March 27, 2008. The Agency will include in recoupment calculations the amounts and units of service paid to Alternative for 14 units of companion service provided to Recipient 12 on April 16, 2008, as shown in the Appendix. The Agency will include in recoupment calculations the amounts and units of service paid to Alternative for 14 units of companion service provided to Recipient 12 on April 30, 2008, as shown in the Appendix. The Agency will include in recoupment calculations the amounts and units of service paid to Alternative for four units of service on January 7, 2008, to Recipient 18. The Agency will include in recoupment calculations the amounts and units of service paid to Alternative for 20 units of service on March 1, 2009, to Recipient 18, as shown in the Appendix. The Agency will include in the recoupment calculations the amounts and units of service paid to Alternative for one unit of in-home support service provided on February 21, 2008, to Recipient 15. The Agency will include in the recoupment calculations the amounts and units of service paid to Alternative for one unit of in-home support service provided on April 2, 2008, to Recipient 15. The Agency will include in the recoupment calculations the amounts and units of service paid to Alternative for one unit of service of in-home support services provided on June 25, 2009, to Recipient 15. (This should not be cumulative to the inclusion in the calculation of all 20 units of service that day due to an ineligible staff providing the services.) The Agency will include in the recoupment calculations the amounts and units of service paid to Alternative for one unit of companion service provided on February 20, 2008, to Recipient 26. The Agency will include in the recoupment calculations the amounts and units of service paid to Alternative for one unit of companion service provided on January 22, 2008, to Recipient 33. The Agency will include in the recoupment calculations the amounts and units of service paid to Alternative for 20 hours of service provided on March 3, 2009, for Recipient 16. The Agency will not impose a sanction upon Alternative. Jurisdiction is reserved to determine costs and interests, if the parties are not able to agree upon them and to consider a challenge, if any, to the extrapolation based upon the findings and conclusions of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 28th day of July, 2014.
Findings Of Fact The PROVIDER received the Final Audit Report that gave notice of PROVIDER'S right to an administrative hearing regarding the alleged Medicaid overpayment. The PROVIDER filed a petition requesting an administrative hearing, and then caused that petition to be WITHDRAWN and the administrative hearing case to be CLOSED. PROVIDER chose not to dispute the facts set forth in the Final Audit Report dated August 15, 2013. The facts alleged in the FAR are hereby deemed admitted, including the total amount of $14,569.69, which includes a fine sanction of $2,419.26. The Agency hereby adopts the facts as set forth in the FAR including the amount of $14,569.69 which is now due and owing, from PROVIDER to the Agency.
Conclusions THIS CAUSE came before me for issuance of a Final Order on a Final Audit Report (“FAR”) dated August 15, 2013 (C.1. No. 13-1386-000). By the Final Audit Report, the Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA” or “Agency”), informed the Respondent, Amwill Assisted Living, Inc., (hereinafter “PROVIDER’), that the Agency was seeking to recover Medicaid overpayments in the amount of $12,096.28, and impose a fine sanction of $2,419.26 pursuant to Sections 409.913(15), (16), and (17), Florida Statutes, and Rule 59G- 9.070(7)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and costs of $54.15 for a total amount of $14,569.69. The Final Audit Report provided full disclosure and notice to the PROVIDER of procedures for requesting an administrative hearing to contest the alleged overpayment. The PROVIDER filed a petition with the Agency requesting a formal administrative hearing on or about September 5, 2013. The Agency forwarded PROVIDER'S hearing request to the Division of Administrative Hearings (Division) for a formal administrative hearing. The Division scheduled a formal hearing for November 22, 2013. On November 12, 2013, the PROVIDER filed a Motion with the Administrative Law Judge, requesting AHCA vs. Amwill Assisted Living, Inc. (AHCA C.I, No.: 13-1386-000) Final Order Page 1 of 4 Filed January 2, 2014 10:59 AM Division of Administrative Hearings withdrawal of their Petition for Formal Hearing, and the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Closing File on November 12, 2013, relinquishing jurisdiction of the case to the Agency.
