The Issue Whether the agency's audit adjustment of an interim rate should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a licensed nursing home located in Chipley, Washington County, Florida. The Petitioner is located in a rural county in Florida's panhandle with high numbers of Medicaid- eligible patients. The Petitioner participates in the Florida Medicaid Program and has agreed to provide skilled or intermediate nursing care services for Medicaid patients. The Respondent is the state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program. The parties have entered into an agreement that governs the provision of Medicaid services and the reimbursement to the provider (Petitioner). Such plan authorizes reimbursement based upon rates agreed between the parties and limited by rules and regulations applicable to the Medicaid Program. In this regard, Medicaid reimbursements are made in accordance with the Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (the Plan). The Plan was adopted and incorporated by reference in Rule Chapter 59G, Florida Administrative Code. To set a reimbursement rate, cost reports are reviewed by AHCA to determine the actual Medicaid allowable costs incurred by the provider. The allowable costs are used to set a prospective rate for the provider. Payments to the provider in subsequent periods are then based upon the rate adjusted for inflation. There are limits on costs and reimbursements. If a provider incurs an expense above the allowed level, it will not be reimbursed. In this regard the approved rate for the provider may not compensate the provider for expenses that were more than anticipated. Medicaid is not intended to pay for luxury care. The Medicaid Program covers rates for providers that are efficiently operated. The providers are not compensated for luxury services, excessive charges, or operating costs that exceed what a prudent, efficiently operated facility would incur. Once the reimbursement rate is set it continues until the next rate-setting period. If circumstances change such that the rate unfairly impacts the provider's ability to provide care, an interim rate adjustment may be requested. An increased interim rate could assist the provider until the regular rate is re-calculated. Nursing homes are subject to inspections or surveys that are performed by AHCA to assure compliance with all applicable standards of operation. The standards are to assure that patients receive a quality of care at or above minimum levels. Pertinent to this case was a survey that found Petitioner deficient due to inadequate staffing levels. Inadequate staffing directly impacts the quality of care a facility is able to provide. Given its rural location and the wages it was offering, the Petitioner could not offer competitive opportunities in order to recruit and retain qualified staff. For entry level employees the Petitioner found itself competing against even McDonald's restaurant for employees. As a result, when a survey found the facility deficient, the Petitioner sought financial relief through a request for an interim rate increase. The provider faced a financial loss if the deficiency were corrected without a corresponding increase in its rate as it would not be able to cover the additional costs within its reimbursement rate. To correct the deficiencies Petitioner sought six additional Certified Nursing Assistants and wage enhancements. As a result, it sought an interim rate increase of $3.56 per day in patient care and $.12 per day in operating cost. The interim reimbursement rate was approved by AHCA in 1996. The reimbursements to this provider then continued based upon the new rate. It then became the facility's objective to follow the plan of correction to assure that the deficiency was, in fact, alleviated. In November of 1997, new rates were established for the Petitioner which became the settled rate. Based upon the cost reports filed with AHCA, the Petitioner's rate was settled with increases of $3.91 per day in patient care and $1.62 in the operating category. The instant case resulted from an audit conducted at the facility. The audit was to verify that the expenses reported were correct and allowable. An audit should also confirm that the statistical information reported by the provider was correct. The auditors used $3.56 instead of $3.91 as the starting point for the cost report figures. The Petitioner had relied on the higher number as the cost- settled figure for the audit. More important, the Petitioner relied on the same accounting methodology it had relied on for the interim rate request. The auditors, an independent accounting firm, did not accept the prior methodology. Subsequent to the audit, the Respondent issued a letter to the Petitioner claiming it was owed $364,621.12 for Medicaid over-payments. The Respondent maintains it is entitled to recoup the over-payments as part of the future reimbursements to the provider. The Petitioner argues that such action will adversely impact the provider's ability to provide the quality of care expected by AHCA. All of the costs reported by this Petitioner are allowable under the Medicaid guidelines. The crux of the issue in the case results from the settled interim rate not being accepted and carried forward by the independent auditors. Because some amounts exceeded the "budgeted" estimates, the auditors disallowed the additional expenses. The amounts, all within the category of wage or salary enhancements, were not deemed proper because they exceeded or altered the granted 50- cent-an-hour pay raise within the original request. Although allowable, the expenditures fell outside the parameters of the budget that support the interim rate increase. Bonuses and wage enhancements paid by the Petitioner during the audited period were not one-time expenses but are on-going programs to encourage and support the retention of qualified employees. This was within the parameter of curing the deficiency that the interim rate sought to address. None of the expenses fell outside of operation and patient care costs. It is anticipated that the reduction in Petitioner's rate will result in reduced staffing. Otherwise, the facility will not be a financially feasible operation. The reimbursement rate for this provider is not higher than other rates for the other providers serving the geographical region served by the Petitioner. When a provider goes through the cost settlement process, AHCA is authorized to and may seek additional information to clarify any form submitted by a Medicaid provider. In this case, the rate was cost- settled without additional information being sought by AHCA. The allowable expenses incurred by the Petitioner support the reimbursement rate paid to this provider.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Administration enter a Final Order reinstating the provider's Medicaid rate to include the interim rate as previously settled and accepted by the Respondent. AHCA should affirm the interim rate established and committed by the cost report allowing $3.91 for patient care and $1.62 for operating costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _____________________________ J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Powell and Mack 803 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Steven A. Grigas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Ruben J. King-Shaw, Jr., Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration is required by law and rule of the Agency to include the gain or loss on the sale of depreciable assets as the result of a sale or disposal, in the calculation of Medicaid allowable costs.
Findings Of Fact Prior to the hearing, the parties submitted a Joint Stipulation which is incorporated in part herein as follows: Petitioner purchased Orlando General Hospital ("OGH"), Medicaid provider number 120065, on December 31, 1990. Upon its sale, OGH merged into and became part of Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., wherein after it was known as Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., d/b/a Florida Hospital East ("Florida Hospital East"). Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., d/b/a Florida Hospital East is a wholly owned subsidiary of Adventist Health System Sunbelt Healthcare Corporation. Florida Hospital East assumed all of the assets and liabilities of OGH. OGH filed a terminating cost report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 1990. On December 31, 1990, the date of sale of OGH to Petitioner, OGH incurred a loss on the sale of the hospital, a depreciable asset. The loss on the sale of OGH was included on both OGH's Medicaid and Medicare terminating cost reports. A loss on the sale of a depreciable asset is the amount that the net book value of the asset sold exceeds the purchase price. A gain or loss on the sale of a depreciable asset is a capital cost. Due to the mechanism of the cost report, a loss on the sale of a depreciable asset is divided into "periods" based upon the time period to which the loss relates. The portion of the loss related to the fiscal year in which the asset is sold is referred to as a "current period" loss. The portion of the loss that relates to all fiscal years prior to the year in which the asset is sold is referred to as a "prior period" loss. Gains and losses related to the current period are included on Worksheet A of the Medicare and Medicaid cost report. Current period capital costs flow to Worksheet B-II Part and B Part III [sic] of the Medicaid cost report. Gains and losses related to the prior period are included on Worksheet E of the Medicare and Medicaid cost reports. OGH's current period is the fiscal year ending 12/31/90. OGH's prior periods in which it participated in the Medicaid Program are 10/24/84 through 12/31/89. OGH's audited Medicaid cost report included in allowable Medicaid costs a loss on the sale of OGH related to the current period. OGH's audited Medicaid cost report did not include in allowable Medicaid costs a loss on the sale of OGH related to the prior periods. The loss on the sale of OGH related to the current period was included in Worksheet A of OGH's audited Medicaid cost report. These costs, including the loss on the sale of OGH, flowed to Worksheet B Part II. OGH's audited Medicare cost report included as allowable Medicare costs the loss on the sale of OGH related to both the current and prior periods in the amount of $9,874,047. The loss from the sale of OGH related to the current period was included on Worksheet A of OGH's audited Medicare cost report. The costs from Worksheet A of OGH's audited Medicare cost report flowed to Worksheet B Part II of OGH's audited Medicare cost report. The loss related to the prior period was included on Worksheet E Part B of OGH's audited Medicaid cost report. The Agency utilizes costs included on Worksheet A of the Medicaid cost report to calculate Medicaid allowable costs. The Agency utilizes the capital costs included on Worksheet B Part II and/or B Part III to calculate allowable Medicaid fixed costs. The Agency does not utilize costs included on Worksheet E Part III to calculate Medicaid allowable costs. The Agency reimburses providers based upon Medicaid allowable costs. aa. The Agency did not include the portion of the loss on the sale of OGH related to the prior periods in the calculation of the OGH's Medicaid allowable costs. bb. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. (Intermediary), contracted with the Agency to perform all audits of Medicaid cost reports. Agency reimbursement to Medicaid providers is governed by Florida's Title XIX Inpatient Hospital Reimbursement Plan (Plan), which has been incorporated in Rule 59G-6.020, Florida Administrative Code. The Plan provides that Medicaid reimbursement for inpatient services shall be based upon a prospectively determined per diem. The payment is based upon the facility's allowable Medicaid costs which include both variable costs and fixed costs. Fixed costs include capital costs and allowable depreciation costs. The per diem payment is calculated by the Agency based upon each facility's allowable Medicaid costs which must be taken by the agency from the facility's cost report. Capital costs, such as depreciation, are found on Worksheet B, Part II and Part III. The Plan requires all facilities participating in the Medicaid program to submit an annual cost report to the Agency. The report is to be in detail, listing their "costs for their entire reporting year making appropriate adjustment as required by the plan for the determination of allowable costs." The cost report must be prepared in accordance with the Medicare method of reimbursement and cost finding, except as modified by the Plan. The cost reports relied upon by the Agency to set rates are audited by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. which has been directed by the Agency to follow Medicare principles of reimbursement in its audit of cost reports. Prior to January 11, 1995, the Plan did not expressly state whether capital gains or losses relating to a change of facility ownership were allowable costs. The 1995 amendment to the Plan contained language expressly providing "[f]or the purposes of this plan, gains or losses resulting from a change of ownership will not be included in the determination of allowable cost for Medicaid reimbursement." No change was made by the amendment to the Medicare principles of reimbursement regarding the treatment of gains and losses on the sale of depreciable assets. The Medicare principles of reimbursement provides that gains and losses from the disposition of depreciable assets are includable in computing allowable costs. The Provider Reimbursement Manual (HIM-15)(PRM), identifies the methods of disposal for assets that are recognized. They include a bona fide sale of depreciable assets, but do not mention a change of ownership. PRM Section 132 treats a loss on a sale of a depreciable asset as an adjustment to depreciation for both the current and periods. Depreciable assets with an expected life of more than two years may not be expensed in the year in which they are put into service. They must be capitalized and a proportionate share of the cost expensed as depreciation over the life of the property. To do so, the provider must estimate the useful life of the property based upon the guidelines of the American Hospital Association, and divide the cost by the number of years of estimated life. It is this yearly depreciation figure which is claimed on the cost report and which is reimbursed. When a depreciable asset is sold for less than book value (net undepreciated value), the provider suffers a loss. Petitioner claims that Medicare holds that in such a case it must be concluded that the estimated depreciation was erroneous and the provider did not receive adequate reimbursement during the years the asset was in service. Medicare accounting procedures do not distinguish between the treatment of a loss on the sale of depreciable assets as related to current and prior periods. PIM Section 132 requires that Medicare recognize the entire loss as an allowable cost for both the current and prior periods, and Medicare treated Petitioner's loss from the sale of its facility as an allowable cost for Medicare reimbursement under both current and prior periods. With the adoption of the January 1995 amendment, however, the wording of the state plan was changed to specifically prohibit gains or losses from a change of ownership from being included in allowable costs for Medicaid reimbursement. This was the first time the state plan addressed gains and losses on the disposal of depreciable assets resulting from a change of ownership. The Agency contends, however, that it has never reimbursed for losses on disposal of property due to a change of ownership, and that the inclusion of the new language was to clarify a pre-existing policy which was being followed at the time of the 1995 amendment, and which goes back to the late 1970s. It would appear, however, that the policy was never written down; was never conveyed to Blue Cross/Blue shield; was never formally conveyed to Medicaid providers; and was never conveyed to the community at large. When pressed, the Agency could not identify any specific case where the policy was followed by the Agency. While admitting that it is Agency practice not to treat losses from the sale of depreciable assets in prior periods as an allowable cost, Petitioner contends that it has been the Agency's practice to treat the loss on the sale of depreciable assets relating to the current period as an allowable cost, and cited several instances where this appears to have been done. The Agency contends that any current period losses paid were paid without knowledge of the Agency, in error, and in violation of the plan. On October 25, 1996, the Agency entered a Final Order in a case involving Florida Hospital/Waterman, Inc., as Petitioner, and the Agency as Respondent. This case was filed by the Petitioner to challenge the Agency's treatment of the loss on the sale of Waterman Medical Center, Inc., another of Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt Healthcare Corporation, and the Final Order in issue incorporated a stipulation into which the parties had entered and which addressed the issue in question here. The stipulation included certain position statements including: A loss on the sale of depreciable assets is an allowable cost under the Medicare Principles of Reimbursement. The State Plan does not specify that the loss on the sale of a depreciable asset is to be treated in a manner different than under the Medicare Principles of Reimbursement. Thus the loss on the sale of a depreciable asset is an allowable cost under the State Plan. The Agency agrees, in accordance with the Medicare Principles of Reimbursement, that under the terms of the State Plan, prior period losses for Waterman will be allocated to prior periods and included in the calculation of the per diem and per visit rates. According to William G. Nutt, Petitioner's director of reimbursement, the only difference between the facts of the Waterman case and the instant case is that they relate to the sale of different facilities. The treatment of loss on the sale of depreciable assets as outlined in the Waterman stipulation is in conflict with the amended Plan and with the unwritten and unuttered Agency policy as urged by the Agency in this case. The Agency agreed in one case to a treatment of loss which it now rejects in the instant case. Petitioner urges that subsequent to the settlement of the Waterman case, but before the instant case was set for hearing, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations during which, according to counsel for the Agency, they made "significant" progress toward applying the settlement in the Waterman case to the current case. In a motion filed to delay the setting of this case for hearing, counsel for the Agency indicated the parties were "finalizing" settlement to resolve the case without resorting to a final hearing, and in a follow-up agreed motion for continuance, advised that the "parties [had] finalized a settlement document [which they were] in the process of executing. The settlement agreement reached by the parties was signed by a representative of the Petitioner and then forwarded to the Agency for signature. The document was not signed by the Agency, and when Petitioner sought enforcement of the "settlement" by an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, the request was denied as being outside the jurisdiction of the judge, and the matter was set for hearing.
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 including the loss on the sale of Orlando General Hospital as an allowable cost for determining Petitioner's entitlement to Medicaid reimbursement for both current and prior years. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Joanne B. Erde, Esquire Broad and Cassel Miami Center Suite 3000 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Jonathan E. Sjostrom, Esquire Steel Hector & Davis LLP 215 South Monroe Street Suite 601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1804 Mark S. Thomas, Esquire Madeline McGuckin, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether Medicaid overpayments were made to Respondent and, if so, what is the total amount of those overpayments. Whether, as a "sanction," Respondent should be directed to submit to a "comprehensive follow-up review in six months."
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings s of fact are made to supplement and clarify the factual stipulations set forth in the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation and their January 26, 2007, pleading:4 Respondent and his Practice Respondent is a pediatric physician whose office is located in a poor neighborhood in Hialeah, Florida. He has a very busy practice, seeing approximately 50 to 60 patients each day the office is open. Respondent documents patient visits by making handwritten notations on printed "progress note" forms. Because of the fast-paced nature of his practice, he does not always "have time to write everything as [he] would like, because [there] is too much" for him to do. Respondent's Participation in the Medicaid Program During the Audit Period, Respondent was authorized to provide physician services to eligible Medicaid patients. Respondent provided such services pursuant to a valid Provider Agreement (Provider Agreement) with AHCA, which contained the following provisions, among others: The Provider agrees to participate in the Florida Medicaid program under the following terms and conditions: * * * Quality of Services. The provider agrees to provide medically necessary services or goods of not less than the scope and quality it provides to the general public. The provider agrees that services or goods billed to the Medicaid program must be medically necessary, of a quality comparable to those furnished by the provider's peers, and within the parameters permitted by the provider's license or certification. The provider further agrees to bill only for the services performed within the specialty or specialties designated in the provider application on file with the Agency. The services or goods must have been actually provided to eligible Medicaid recipients by the provider prior to submitting the claim. Compliance. The provider agrees to comply with all local, state and federal laws, rules, regulations, licensure laws, Medicaid bulletins, manuals, handbooks and Statements of Policy as they may be amended from time to time. Term and signatures. The parties agree that this is a voluntary agreement between the Agency and the provider, in which the provider agrees to furnish services or goods to Medicaid recipients. . . . Provider Responsibilities. The Medicaid provider shall: * * * (b) Keep and maintain in a systematic and orderly manner all medical and Medicaid related records as the Agency may require and as it determines necessary; make available for state and federal audits for five years, complete and accurate medical, business, and fiscal records that fully justify and disclose the extent of the goods and services rendered and billings made under the Medicaid. The provider agrees that only records made at the time the goods and services were provided will be admissible in evidence in any proceeding relating to the Medicaid program. * * * (d) Except as otherwise provided by law, the provider agrees to provide immediate access to authorized persons (including but not limited to state and federal employees, auditors and investigators) to all Medicaid- related information, which may be in the form of records, logs, documents, or computer files, and all other information pertaining to services or goods billed to the Medicaid program. This shall include access to all patient records and other provider information if the provider cannot easily separate records for Medicaid patients from other records. * * * (f) Within 90 days of receipt, refund any moneys received in error or in excess of the amount to which the provider is entitled from the Medicaid program. * * * (i) . . . . The provider shall be liable for all overpayments for any reason and pay to the Agency any fine or overpayment imposed by the Agency or a court of competent jurisdiction. Provider agrees to pay interest at 12% per annum on any fine or repayment amount that remains unpaid 30 days from the date of any final order requiring payment to the Agency. * * * Respondent's Medicaid provider number (under which he billed the Medicaid program for providing these services) was (and remains) 370947700. Handbook Provisions The handbooks with which Petitioner was required to comply in order to receive Medicaid payment for services rendered during the Audit Period included the Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook, HCFA-1500 (MPR Handbook); Physician Coverage and Limitations Handbook (PCL Handbook); the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Coverage and Limitations Handbook (EPSDTCL Handbook); and the Child Health Check-up Coverage and Limitations Handbook (CHCUCL Handbook). Medical Necessity The PCL Handbook provided that the Medicaid program would reimburse physician providers for services "determined [to be] medically necessary" and not duplicative of another provider's service, and it went on to state as follows: In addition, the services must meet the following criteria: the services must be individualized, specific, consistent with symptoms or confirmed diagnosis of the illness or injury under treatment, and not in excess of the recipient's needs; the services cannot be experimental or investigational; the services must reflect the level of services that can be safely furnished and for which no equally effective and more conservative or less costly treatment is available statewide; and the services must be furnished in a manner not primarily intended for the convenience of the recipient, the recipient's caretaker, or the provider. The fact that a provider has prescribed, recommended, or approved medical or allied care, goods, or services does not, in itself, make such care, goods or services medically necessary or a covered services. Note See Appendix D, Glossary, in the Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook, HCFA-1500 and EPSDT 224, for the definition of medically necessary.[5] The EPSDTCL and CHCUCL Handbooks had similar provisions. Documentation Requirements The MPR Handbook required the provider to keep "accessible, legible and comprehensible" medical records that "state[d] the necessity for and the extent of services" billed the Medicaid program and that were "signed and dated at the time of service." The handbook further required, among other things, that the provider retain such records for "at least five years from the date of service" and "send, at his or her expense, legible copies of all Medicaid-related information to the authorized state and federal agencies and their authorized representatives." The MPR Handbook warned that providers "not in compliance with the Medicaid documentation and record retention policies [described therein] may be subject to administrative sanctions and recoupment of Medicaid payments" and that "Medicaid payments for services that lack required documentation or appropriate signatures will be recouped." EPSDT Screening/Child Health Check-Up The EPSDTCL Handbook provided: To be reimbursed by Medicaid, the provider must address and document in the recipient's medical record all the required components of an EPSDT screening. The following required components are listed in the order that they appear on the optional EPSDT screening form: Health and developmental history Nutritional assessment Developmental assessment Physical examination Dental screening Vision screening Hearing screening Laboratory tests Immunization Health education Diagnosis and treatment The CHCUCL Handbook, which replaced the EPSDTCL Handbook in or around May 2000, similarly provided as follows: To be reimbursed by Medicaid, the provider must assess and document in the child's medical record all the required components of a Child Health Check-Up. The required components are as follows: Comprehensive Health and Developmental History, including assessment of past medical history, developmental history and behavioral health status; Nutritional assessment; Developmental assessment; Comprehensive Unclothed Physical Examination Dental screening including dental referral, where required; Vision screening including objective testing, where required; Hearing screening including objective testing, where required; Laboratory tests including blood lead testing, where required; Appropriate immunizations; Health education, anticipatory guidance; Diagnosis and treatment; and Referral and follow-up, as appropriate. Coding Chapter 3 of the PCL Handbook "describe[d] the procedure codes for the services reimbursable by Medicaid that [had to be] used by physicians providing services to eligible recipients." As explained on the first page of this chapter of the handbook: The procedure codes listed in this chapter [were] Health Care Financing Administration Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Levels 1, 2 and 3. These [were] based on the Physician[]s['] Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) book. The Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) book referred to in Chapter 3 of the PCL Handbook was a publication of the American Medical Association. It contained a listing of procedures and services performed by physicians in different settings, each identified by a "procedure code" consisting of five digits or a letter followed by four digits. For instance, there were various "procedure codes" for office visits. These "procedure codes" included the following, among others: New Patient * * * 99204 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient which requires these three key components: a comprehensive history; a comprehensive examination; and medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate to high severity. Physicians typically spend 45 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * Established Patient * * * 99213 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: an expanded problem focused history; an expanded problem focused examination; medical decision making of low complexity. Counseling and coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of low to moderate severity. Physicians typically spend 15 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. 99214 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: a detailed history; a detailed examination; medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate to high severity. Physicians typically spend 25 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * Fee Schedules In Appendix J of the PCL Handbook, there was a "fee schedule," which established the amount physicians would be paid by the Medicaid program for each reimbursable procedure and service (identified by "procedure code"). For both "new patient" office visits (99201-99205 "procedure code" series) and "established patient" office visits (99211-99215 "procedure code" series), the higher numbered the "procedure code" in the series, the more a physician would be reimbursed under the "fee schedule." The Audit and Aftermath Commencing in or around August 2002, AHCA conducted an audit of Respondent's Medicaid claims for services rendered during the Audit Period (Audit Period Claims).6 Respondent had submitted 18,102 such Audit Period Claims, for which he had received payments totaling $596,623.15. These Audit Period Claims involved 1,372 different Medicaid patients. From this group, AHCA randomly selected a "cluster sample" of 40 patients. Of the 18,102 Audit Period Claims, 713 had been for services that, according to the claims, had been provided to the 40 patients in the "cluster sample" (Sample Claims). Respondent had received a total of $23,263.18 for these 713 Sample Claims. During an August 28, 2002, visit to Respondent's office, AHCA personnel "explain[ed] to [Respondent] what the audit was about [and] why [AHCA] was doing it" and requested Respondent to provide AHCA with copies of the medical records Respondent had on file for the 40 patients in the "cluster sample" documenting the services provided to them during the Audit Period. The originals of these records were not inspected by AHCA personnel or agents during, or any time after, this August 28, 2002, site visit. Sometime within approximately 30 to 45 days of the August 28, 2002, site visit, Respondent, through his office staff, made the requested copies (First Set of Copies) and provided them to AHCA. There is nothing on the face of these documents to suggest that they were not true, accurate, and complete copies of the originals in Respondent's possession, as they existed at the time of copying (Copied Originals). They do not appear, upon visual examination, to be the product of "bad photocopying." While the handwritten entries and writing are oftentimes difficult (at least for the undersigned) to decipher, this is because of the poor legibility of the handwriting, not because the copies are faint or otherwise of poor quality. Each of the Sample Claims was reviewed to determine whether it was supported by information contained in the First Set of Copies. An initial review was conducted by AHCA Program Analyst Theresa Mock and AHCA Registered Nurse Consultant Blanca Notman. AHCA then contracted with Larry Deeb, M.D., to conduct an independent "peer review" in accordance with the provisions of Section 409.9131, Florida Statutes. Since 1980, Dr. Deeb has been a Florida-licensed pediatric physician, certified by the American Board of Pediatrics, in active practice in Tallahassee. AHCA provided Dr. Deeb with the First Set of Copies, along with worksheets containing a "[l]isting of [a]ll claims in [the] sample" on which Ms. Notman had made handwritten notations indicating her preliminary determination as to each of the Sample Claims (Claims Worksheets). In conducting his "peer review," Dr. Deeb did not interview any of the 40 patients in the "cluster sample," nor did he take any other steps to supplement the information contained in the documents that he was provided. Dr. Deeb examined the First Set of Copies. He conveyed to AHCA his findings regarding the sufficiency of these documents to support the Sample Claims by making appropriate handwritten notations on the Claims Worksheets before returning them to AHCA. Based on Dr. Deeb's sufficiency findings, as well as Ms. Notman's "no documentation" determinations, AHCA "provisional[ly]" determined that Respondent had been overpaid a total $80,788.23 for the Audit Period Claims. By letter dated July 7, 2003 (Provisional Agency Audit Report), AHCA advised Petitioner of this "provisional" determination and invited Respondent to "submit further documentation in support of the claims identified as overpayment," adding that "[d]ocumentation that appear[ed] to be altered, or in any other way appear[ed] not to be authentic, [would] not serve to reduce the overpayment." Appended to the letter were "[t]he audit work papers [containing a] listing [of] the claims that [were] affected by this determination." In the Provisional Agency Audit Report, AHCA gave the following explanation as to how it arrived at its overpayment determination: REVIEW DETERMINATION(S) Medicaid policy defines the varying levels of care and expertise required for the evaluation and management procedure codes for office visits. The documentation you provided supports a lower level of office visit than the one for which you billed and received payment. The difference between the amount you were paid and the correct payment for the appropriate level of service is considered an overpayment. Medicaid policy specifies how medical records must be maintained. A review of your medical records revealed that some services for which you billed and received payment were not documented. Medicaid requires documentation of the services and considers payment made for services not appropriately documented an overpayment. Medicaid policy addresses specific billing requirements and procedures. You billed Medicaid for Child Health Check Up (CHCUP) services and office visits for the same child on the same day. Child Health Check- Up Providers may only bill for one visit, a Child Health Check-Up or a sick visit. The difference between the amount you were paid and the appropriate fee is considered an overpayment. The overpayment was calculated as follows: A random sample of 40 recipients respecting whom you submitted 713 claims was reviewed. For those claims in the sample which have dates of service from January 01, 2000 through December 31, 2001 an overpayment of $4,168.00 or $5.84667601 per claim was found, as indicated on the accompanying schedule. Since you were paid for a total (population) of 18,102 claims for that period, the point estimate of the total overpayment is 18,102 x $5.84667601= $105,836.33. There is a 50 percent probability that the overpayment to you is that amount or more. There was then an explanation of the "statistical formula for cluster sampling" that AHCA used and how it "calculated that the overpayment to [Respondent was] $80,788.23 with a ninety-five percent (95%) probability that it [was] that amount or more." After receiving the Provisional Agency Audit Report, Respondent requested to meet with Dr. Deeb to discuss Dr. Deeb's sufficiency findings. The meeting was held on September 25, 2003, approximately six months after Dr. Deeb had reviewed the First Set of Copies and a year after AHCA had received the First Set of Copies from Respondent. At the meeting, Respondent presented to Dr. Deeb what Respondent represented was a better set of copies of the Copied Originals than the First Set of Copies (on which Dr. Deeb had based the sufficiency findings AHCA relied on in making its "provisional" overpayment determination). According to Respondent, the First Set of Copies "had not been properly Xeroxed." He stated that his office staff "had not copied the back section of the documentation and that was one of the major factors in the documentation not supporting the [claimed] level of service." The copies that Respondent produced at this meeting (Second Set of Copies) had additional handwritten entries and writing (both on the backs and fronts of pages) not found in the First Set of Copies: the backs of "progress note" pages that were completely blank in the First Set of Copies contained handwritten narratives, and there were handwritten entries and writing in numerous places on the fronts of these pages where, on the fronts of the corresponding pages in the First Set of Copies, just blank, printed lines appeared (with no other discernible markings). The Second Set of Copies was not appreciably clearer than the First Set of Copies. In the two hours that he had set aside to meet with Respondent, Dr. Deeb only had time to conduct a "quick[]," partial review of the Second Set of Copies. Based on this review (which involved looking at documents concerning approximately half of the 40 patients in the "cluster sample"), Dr. Deeb preliminarily determined to "allow" many of the Sample Claims relating to these patients that he had previously determined (based on his review of the First Set of Copies) were not supported by sufficient documentation. Following this September 25, 2003, meeting, after comparing the Second Set of Copies with the First Set of Copies and noting the differences between the two, AHCA "made the decision that [it] would not accept the [S]econd [S]et [of Copies]" because these documents contained entries and writing that appeared to have been made, not contemporaneously with the provision of the goods or services they purported to document (as required), but rather after the post-Audit Period preparation of the First Set of Copies. Instead, AHCA, reasonably, based its finalized overpayment determination on the First Set of Copies. Thereafter, AHCA prepared and sent to Respondent a Final Agency Audit Report, which was in the form of a letter dated June 29, 2004, advising Respondent that AHCA had finalized the "provisional" determination announced in the Provisional Agency Audit that he had been overpaid $80,788.23 for the Audit Period Claims (a determination that the preponderance of the record evidence in this case establishes is a correct one).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that AHCA enter a final order finding that Respondent received $80,788.23 in Medicaid overpayments for the Audit Period Claims, and requiring Respondent to repay this amount to AHCA. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2007.
Findings Of Fact The Home The Miami Jewish Home and Hospital for the Aged is a multi-faceted operation located on an entire city block in Miami. It provides a variety of services including an adult congregate living facility, an auditorium, a nursing home and a 32-bed hospital. Residents may come to the Home bringing with them their cash, and property and other possessions, to be sold. An account is opened for the resident from which charges made by the Home may be deducted. This fund is the Resident Asset Fund. Earings on the Resident Asset Fund are applied to reduce the Home's operating deficit. The Home provides Medicare and Medicaid services. Medicaid provides for long-term care for the indigent. About 60% of the Home's patient days were devoted to Medicaid patients in 1985. By participating in the Medicaid program, the Home is required to file cost reports each year to determine its allowable costs under Medicaid rules. The fiscal year for the nursing home runs from July 1 to June 30. The Medicaid Program Medicaid costs are shared between the federal government and the State of Florida. The Medicaid program is administered at the federal level by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and at the state level by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) of HHS establishes the Medicaid costs the federal government will pay for. HCFA's Provider Reimbursement Manual, also referred to as HIM-15, contains reimbursement guidelines. Medicaid reimbursement is calculated as a rate per Medicaid patient per day. Reimbursement is provided prospctively and is based on prior cost reports, inflated forward to the period of reimbursement. The Home's unaudited cost report data is used for that purpose. In order to insure the accuracy of the Medicaid cost reports, HRS performs either test reviews or full field audits of the reports. Full audits are done either by HRS auditors or by outside auditors on contract with HRS. Here the Home's cost report was audited for HRS by Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co. HRS reviews the preliminary audit reports of its contract auditors, which can result in changes before the final audit report is issued. The 1985 Medicaid Cost Report A Medicaid cost report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 985 was filed by the Home in mid-October 1985. David Farkas, the Director of Financial Operations for the nursing home prepared that Medicaid cost report; he also had it reviewed by the accounting firm of Deloitte Haskins & Sells before it was submitted to the Department. In the Medicaid cost report, a nursing home's costs are broken down into four components: (a) those from operations; (b) those from patient care, (c) return on equity and (d) property. Costs within each of those four categories are determined and then divided by the number of patient days at the nursing home to determine a cost per patient day. The cost per patient day for the categories of operating costs and patient care are compared to a ceiling or cap that is generated through surveys performed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Caps are adjusted for the geographical location and size of the facility. Assuming that the nursing home is at or below the cap for operations and patient care determined from the survey, the cost per patient day in each of the four components are added to form a composite reimbursement rate. Costs incurred in excess of the caps for operations and patient care are not reimbursed. An inflation factor is then added to a provider's costs because the State of Florida operates on prospective reimbursement system. Patient Trust Fund A nursing home which holds residents' funds is required by Section 400.162, Florida Statutes (1987) to provide a bond equal to twice the average monthly balance of the funds it held during the preceding year in order to ensure that the funds will be available to residents. The nursing home also has the option, in lieu of a bond, to provide a self-insurance fund protecting the monies it holds in trust. By letter dated May 31, 1985, the nursing home received approval from the Department to establish a self-insurance fund under Section 400.162 Florida Statutes. Its account was opened with Sun Bank of Miami. When the account was established the Home was required to deposit in it twice the average monthly balance of its Resident Asset Fund for the preceding year. As of June 30, 1985, the Patient Trust Fund contained $2,750,000, representing twice the $1,375,000 in resident assets held in the Resident Asset Fund. The money the Home placed in the Patient Trust Fund came from donations and from the building fund for the Home. Those funds are held in the form of treasury notes and certificates of deposit. The nursing home treated the Patient Trust Fund as part of the building fund in its 1985 Medicaid cost report. When the funds which comprise the Patient Trust Fund are placed with a trustee, they are restricted. The trustee holds the securities, and the State has the right to draw against those securities when a default occurs in the nursing home's handling of residents' funds. Only the principal amount of the Home's self-insurance fund is restricted, however. The Home itself receives the benefit of interest or dividends which accrue on the monies deposited in the self-insurance fund. Those earnings accrue to the benefit of the Home's building fund. The premium for a surety bond of the type required by Section 400.162(5)(b)1. Florida Statutes in 1985 would have cost the Home 2 percent of the amount bonded; based on 2 percent of $2,750,000, the premium would have been $55,000. This bond premium would have been treated as an allowable operating cost. The Home's operating costs exceeded the cap, however, so it actually would have received no additional reimbursement for the $55,000 bond premium if a bond had been purchased. The Audit After the nursing home submitted its 1985 Medicaid cost report, Barry Scutillo of Peat Marwick contacted the Home on behalf of HRS to audit the Home's records supporting its 1985 report. The audit resulted in a number of adjustments which were discussed with representatives of the nursing home at an exit conference. The issue of the proper treatment of the nursing home's funds deposited in the Patient Trust Fund at Sun Bank was discussed during the audit. The auditor for Peat Marwick, Mr. Scutillo, thought that the Home had accounted for the use of those funds correctly by seeking a return on equity from Medicaid for the securities in the Patient Trust Fund. The Audit Report Ultimately, Mr. Scutillo's field work was reviewed by more senior members of Peat Marwick and by HRS. An audit report was issued by Peat Marwick Mitchell & Company dated November 18, 1986 which did propose adjustments to the Home's cost report arising from the treatment of the funds which had been deposited in the Patient Trust Fund in Sun Bank. The audit report proposed to reduce nursing home's equity by $2,734,270 and to adjust the return on equity before apportionment by $108,515. The other adjustments proposed are of no consequence, because the nursing home is already at or exceeds the Medicaid cost caps, and federal regulations would prevent the Home from receiving additional reimbursement on the other adjustments even if they were made in the nursing home's favor. After the nursing home filed a request for an administrative hearing on the adjustments made in the Peat Marwick audit, representatives of the nursing home and HRS met to discuss the issues, and agreed to present a joint position paper to HCFA for a non-binding determination on the issue whether the Home was entitled to a return on equity for the funds in the Patient Trust Fund at Sun Bank. The parties agreed that each would prepare a position paper which would be forwarded to the appropriate federal officials for review. The Home's position paper was submitted to HRS but HRS failed to submit it to the federal government. Instead, HRS submitted only its own position paper. After the Home discovered this, it sent its position paper directly to the HCFA. HCFA's Response The HCFA responded, after reviewing the position of both parties, that the self-insurance fund should be excludedfrom the Home's equity capital. 1/ The HCFA believed that the fund was segregated and not used to provide patient care. 2/ The manual which HCFA relied upon, (HIM-15), contains in Section 1202.1 a definition of equity capital which includes the health care provider's investment in property, plant and equipment related to patient care, and that working capital necessary for the proper operation of patient care activities. A proprietary provider is entitled to a rate of return on its equity capital which is "a percentage equal to 1 and 1/2 times the average of the rates of interest on special issues of public debt obligations issued to the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for each of the months during the provider's reporting period." (HIM-15, Section 1206). The manual also describes items which are to be excluded from the computation of equity capital, and in Section 1218.9 states: Where a provider maintains a self- insurance program in lieu of purchasing conventional insurance, the funds in the self-insurance reserve fund must be set aside in a segregated account to cover possible losses and not used to provide patient care. Therefore, the amount deposited in the fund and the earnings on the self-insurance reserve remaining in the fund are not included in equity capital. The nursing home argues that Section 1218.9 focuses on self-insurance funds which a health care provider maintains to protect itself, and that the section is inapplicable here, because the funds deposited with Sun Bank were deposited for the protection of patients, not of the nursing home. This is unpersuasive. The nursing home itself is responsible for any defalcations in the handling of residents' assets placed with it as trustee. The Patient Trust Fund which serves as self-insurance for claims against the Home for mismanagement of the Resident Trust Funds is similar to conventional insurance.
The Issue The amount to be paid by Petitioners, Pedro Garcia, a minor by and through his parents and natural guardians, Jesus Garcia and Norma Cisneros ("Petitioners") to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA"), out of the settlement proceeds, as reimbursement for past Medicaid expenditures pursuant to section 409.910, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Pedro Garcia ("Pedro") was born on October 30, 2014. When he was two months old, he presented to the emergency room ("ER") with vomiting and excessive crying. The doctors failed to diagnose an intestinal blockage and discharged Pedro home. Pedro was taken again to the ER in dire distress. He was airlifted to a pediatric hospital where emergency surgery was performed to remove 90 percent of his intestine. Pedro now suffers from the effects of having 90 percent of his intestine removed, including: nutritional deficiencies, diarrhea, dehydration, and abdominal distress. He cannot play with exertion and his activities are limited. Pedro will suffer the effects of his injury for the remainder of his life. A portion of Pedro's medical care related to the injury was paid by AHCA through the Medicaid program and Medicaid, through AHCA, provided $71,230.43 in benefits. Pedro's parents and natural guardians, Jesus Garcia and Norma Cisneros, brought a medical malpractice action against the medical providers and staff responsible for Pedro's care ("Defendants") to recover all of Pedro's damages, as well as their individual damages associated with their son's injury. Because of uncertainty on issues of liability and only a $250,000 insurance policy on the most culpable defendant, Pedro's medical malpractice action against the Defendants was settled for a confidential unallocated lump sum of $2,000,000. During the pendency of Pedro's medical malpractice action, AHCA was notified of the action and AHCA asserted a $71,230.43 Medicaid lien against Pedro's cause of action and settlement of that action. The Medicaid program through AHCA, spent $71,230.43 on behalf of Pedro, all of which represents expenditures paid for Pedro's past medical expenses. Another non-AHCA Medicaid provider, Integral Quality Care, provided $223,089.26 in past medical expenses on behalf of Pedro. Another non-AHCA Medicaid provider, Department of Health, Child's Medical Services, provided $168,161.12 in past medical expenses on behalf of Pedro. Accordingly, a total of $462,480.81 was paid for Pedro's past medical expenses. AHCA did not commence a civil action to enforce its rights under section 409.910 or intervene or join in Pedro's action against the Defendants. By letter, AHCA was notified of Pedro's settlement. AHCA has not filed a motion to set-aside, void, or otherwise dispute Pedro's settlement. Application of the formula in section 409.910(11)(f) to Pedro's $2,000,000 settlement requires payment to AHCA of the full $71,230.43 Medicaid lien. At the hearing, Petitioners presented the expert testimony of attorney Edward H. Zebersky, who represented Pedro throughout the underlying medical malpractice action against the Defendants. Without objection, Mr. Zebersky was accepted as an expert in the valuation of damages suffered by injured parties. Mr. Zebersky has been an attorney since 1991. Since 1992, Mr. Zebersky has been a plaintiff's trial lawyer, with a substantial portion of his practice devoted to personal injury cases, including medical malpractice matters. He is a partner with the law firm of Zebersky Payne Shaw Lewenz, LLP and AV rated by Martindale-Hubbell. Mr. Zebersky is a member of numerous trial attorney associations and has held leadership positions in several associations, including president of the Florida Justice Association in 2006 and serving on the Board of Governors of the American Association for Justice for the past ten years. Mr. Zebersky handles jury trials. He has secured multiple eight-figure verdicts and several seven-figure verdicts, and he stays abreast of jury verdicts on other cases in his area. As a routine part of his practice, Mr. Zebersky makes assessments concerning the value of damages suffered by his clients. Mr. Zebersky was accepted as an expert in a Medicaid lien dispute at DOAH in the case of Herrera v. Agency for Health Care Administration, Case No. 16-1270MTR, 2016 Fla. Div. Admin. Hear. LEXIS 493 (Fla. DOAH Oct. 11, 2016). Mr. Zebersky was familiar with the circumstances surrounding Pedro's injury and medical malpractice claims and gave a detailed explanation of them. Mr. Zebersky reviewed Pedro's life care plan, which details Pedro's future medical needs, and an economist report, which calculated the present value of Pedro's future medical care and present value of Pedro's lost future earnings. The economist placed the present value of Pedro's future medical expenses and lost future earnings at approximately $9,500,000. According to Mr. Zebersky, past medical expenses would also be added to arrive at the full value of Pedro's economic damages. Mr. Zebersky testified that in addition to economic damages, a jury would also be asked to assign a value to past and future noneconomic damages (i.e., pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life). Mr. Zebersky testified that Pedro's claim for noneconomic damages would have an exceedingly high number, which as a "rule of thumb" is three times the value of his economic damages. Mr. Zebersky persuasively and credibly testified that the total value of all of Pedro's damages would be in excess of $20,000,000, and that valuing Pedro's damages at $15,000,000 is a very conservative and low valuation of his damages. Mr. Zebersky persuasively and credibly testified that the $2,000,000 settlement did not fully compensate Pedro for the full value of his damages. Mr. Zebersky testified that based on a conservative value of all of Pedro's damages of $15,000,000, the $2,000,000 settlement represents a recovery of 13.33 percent of the full value of his damages. AHCA did not call any witnesses, present any evidence as to the value of damages, or propose a different valuation of damages. Mr. Zebersky's testimony regarding the total value of Pedro's damages was credible, unimpeached, and unrebutted. Petitioner proved that the settlement of $2,000,000 does not fully compensate Pedro for the full value of his damages. Mr. Zebersky further testified that because Pedro only recovered in the settlement 13.33 percent of the full value of his damages, he only recovered 13.33 percent of AHCA's $71,230.43 Medicaid lien, or $9,495.01. Mr. Zebersky testified that it would be reasonable to allocate $9,495.01 of the settlement to past medical expenses paid by AHCA through the Medicaid program. Following the settlement, Mr. Zebersky negotiated the non-AHCA Integral Quality Care Medicaid lien from $233,089.26 to $18,737.00, and the non-AHCA Department of Health, Child's Medical Services lien from $168,161.12 to $22,415. On cross-examination, Mr. Zebersky acknowledged that the $233,089.26 and $168,161.12 from Integral Quality Care and Department of Health, Child's Medical Services are part of Pedro's claim for past medical expenses. However, Mr. Zebersky failed to include these past medical expenses in applying the ratio to reduce the Medicaid lien amount owed to AHCA. AHCA successfully contested the methodology used to calculate the allocation to past medical expenses based on Mr. Zebersky's failure to include these past medical expenses in applying the ratio. Accordingly, Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that 13.33 percent is the appropriate pro rata share of Pedro's past medical expenses to be applied to determine the amount recoverable by AHCA in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. Total past medical expenses is the sum of AHCA's lien in the amount of $71,230.43, and the past medical expenses in the amounts of $233,089.26 and $168,161.12, which equals $462,480.81. Accordingly, following Mr. Zebersky's methodology and applying the $15,000,000 valuation to the proper amount of total past medical expenses of $462,480.81, the settlement portion properly allocable to Pedro's past medical expenses to satisfy AHCA's lien is $61,648.69 ($462,480.81 x 13.33 percent = $61,648.69).
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, United Health, Inc. (United), is the owner and operator of approximately one hundred and twenty-three nursing homes in thirteen states. In the State of Florida, it owns and operates sixteen nursing homes and one intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded that are licensed by respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). At issue in this proceeding are the cost reports and supplemental schedules filed by thirteen nursing home facilities.1 In accordance with Medicaid guidelines, petitioner was required to annually submit cost reports to HRS reflecting its allowable costs in providing Medicaid services to its patients. HRS is designated as the state agency responsible for the administration of Medicaid funds under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. In order to be reimbursed for said costs, the facility was required to show that the costs were in conformity with Federal and State Medicaid reimbursement principles. Those principles are embodied in the Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan (Plan) adopted by the State.2 This document contains the reimbursement methodology to be used for nursing homes who provide Medicaid services. In addition, providers must comply with Health Insurance Manual 15 (HIM-15), a compendium of federal cost reimbursement guidelines utilized by HRS, and generally accepted accounting principles. By letter dated September 9, 1985 petitioner requested that HRS adjust its July 1, 1985 reimbursement rates for the thirteen facilities to reflect certain annualized costs incurred during the preceding fiscal year ending December 31, 1984. According to the letter, the adjustment was appropriate under Section V.B.I.b. of the September 1, 1984 Plan. On October 21, 1985, an HRS Medicaid cost reimbursement analyst issued a letter denying the request on the following grounds: Our review of the information submitted with the fiscal year end 12/31/84 cost reports revealed that the annualized operating and patient care costs were not documented to be new and expanded services or related to licensure and certification requirements. The annualized property cost appeared to be 1 2 various purchases, repairs and maintenance and was not documented to be capital improvements. The denial prompted the instant proceeding. B. Reimbursement Principles In General Under the Medicaid reimbursement plan adopted for use in Florida, nursing homes are reimbursed by HRS on a prospective basis for their allowable costs incurred in providing Medicaid services. This method is commonly referred to as the prospective plan, and has been in use since 1977. Under this concept, a nursing home files with HRS, within ninety days after the close of its fiscal year, a cost report reflecting its actual costs for the immediate preceding fiscal year. Within the next ninety days, the nursing home is given a per diem reimbursement rate (or ceiling) to be used during the following twelve months.3 For example, if a provider's fiscal year ended December 31, 1984, its cost report would be due by March 31, 1985. HRS would then provide estimated reimbursement rates to be used during the period from July 1, 1985 through June 30, 1986. As can be seen, there is a time lag between the end of a cost reporting year and the provider's receiving the new rate. The new reimbursement rate is based upon the provider's actual costs in the preceding fiscal year (reporting period) adjusted upward by an inflation factor that is intended to compensate the provider for cost increases caused by inflation. The prospective plan enables a provider to know in advance what rates it will be paid for Medicaid services during that year rather than being repaid on a retroactive basis. If a provider operates efficiently at a level below the ceiling, it is "rewarded" being allowed to keep a portion of the difference. Conversely, if it exceeds the caps, it is penalized to the extent that it receives only the rates previously authorized by HRS, and must absorb the shortfall. At the same time, it should be noted that the reimbursement rate is not intended to cover all costs incurred by a provider, but only those that are reasonable and necessary in an efficiently operated facility. These unreimbursed costs are covered through other provider resources, or by a future cut in services. When the events herein occurred, there were two types of adjustments allowed under the prospective plan. The first adjustment is the inflation factor, and as noted above, it 3 authorizes the provider to adjust certain reported costs by the projected rate of inflation to offset anticipated cost increases due to inflation. However, because the prospective plan (and the inflation factor) ignores other cost increases that occur during the given year, HRS devised a second type of adjustment for providers to use. This adjustment is known as the gross-up provision, and allows the annualization of certain costs incurred by a provider during a portion of the reporting period. The concept itself .s embodied in subparagraph B.1.b. of Part V of the September 1, 1984 Plan. Its use may be illustrated with the following example. A provider constructs an addition to its facility with an in-service date at the end of the sixth month of the reporting period. By reflecting only the depreciation associated with the addition during the last six months of the reporting period, the facility understates its actual costs, and is reimbursed for only one-half of the facility's depreciation during the following year. Under the gross-up provision the provider grosses up, or annualizes, the reported cost to give it a full year's effect, thereby ensuring that the next year's rates will be more realistic. Although the provision has application to this proceeding, over objection by the nursing home industry it was eliminated from the Plan on October 1, 1985 and is no longer available to providers. At hearing HRS contended the provision should have been eliminated in 1984, but through oversight remained in effect until 1985. However this contention is rejected as not being credible, and is contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Finally, neither party could recall if a request under this provision had ever been filed. They do acknowledge that HRS has never approved such a request during the more than two years when the provision was operative. In addition to the gross-up and inflation provisions, there exists an alternative means for additional rate reimbursement through what is known as the interim rate provision. Under this provision, a provider can request an interim rate increase from HRS during the period when its prospective rates are in effect to cover major unexpected costs. Assuming a request is valid and substantiated, a provider is eligible for immediate cash relief dating back to the date of the actual expense. However, because of HRS' concern that this provision was being "abused", only those costs which exceed $5,000 and cause a change of 1% or more in the total prospective per diem rate are now eligible for reimbursement. These monetary thresholds on interim rate requests became effective September 1, 1984. When these higher thresholds were imposed, HRS made representations to the nursing home industry that a provider could still utilize the gross-up provision to cover other unexpected costs. Finally, it is noted that unlike the prospective rate, an interim rate is cost settled. This means the provider's cost reports are later audited, and excess reimbursements must be repaid to HRS. This differs from the prospective plan where any "overpayments" are not subject to recoupment by HRS. Even so, a provider is limited by the reasonableness and prudent buyer concepts which serve as a check on potential abuse by a provider. The Gross-Up Feature In its relevant form, the gross-up provision was first adopted for use by HRS in its April 1, 1983 Plan.4 It required HRS to: Review and adjust each provider's cost report referred to in A. (1.) as follows: * * * b. to compensate for new and expanded or discontinued services, licensure and certification requirements, and capital improvements which occurred during the reporting year but were not included or totally accounted for in the cost report. This language was incorporated with only minor changes into the September 1, 1984 Plan and is applicable to the cost reports in issue. In its 1984 form, the provision required HRS to review and adjust each provider's cost report as follows: b. To compensate for new and expanded or discontinued services, licensure and certification requirements, and capital improvements not included or totally accounted for in the reporting year. For additional costs to be provided, the provider must furnish adequate supporting documentation. 4 Accordingly, if a cost fits within one of the three categories, HRS is required to adjust a provider's report to compensate it for the expenditure. The April 1, 1983 Plan was negotiated by the nursing home industry and HRS representatives at a meeting in Gainesville, Florida. For this reason, it is commonly referred to as the Gainesville Plan. Through testimony of negotiators who participated at the meeting, it was established that the Plan had three objectives: to give proper payment to nursing homes; to meet state and federal regulations; and to help upgrade care in the nursing homes. At the same time, the negotiators recognized that a prospective plan based on inFla.ion alone overlooked other cost increases that occurred during a given year. Therefore, the gross-up provision was added to the Plan to ensure that providers could estimate (and recoup) their future costs in as accurate a manner as possible, and to bring the plan into compliance with federal guidelines. It was also designed to ensure that a provider did not have to wait an extraordinarily long time for expenses to be recognized. In addition, HRS was hopeful that the gross-up provision would minimize the providers' reliance upon the interim rate feature (which was intended to cover only major items) thereby reducing the agency's overall workload. Indeed, the interim and gross-up features were intended to complement each other, in that one provided immediate relief on major unexpected items while the other provided a means to adjust partial year costs incurred during the reporting period. The implementation of thresholds on the interim rate provision in September, 1984 increased the importance of the gross-up provision to handle smaller items. Therefore, HRS' contention that the interim and gross-up provisions are in conflict is hereby rejected. In order for a cost to be eligible for annualization, it must fall within one of three categories: new or expanded service, a capital improvement, or a cost to meet HRS' licensure and certification requirements. The parties have stipulated that HRS' denial of United's request was based solely upon HRS' perception that the costs did not fall within any of the three categories. The three types of costs within the feature are not defined in the Plan. Testimony from the Plan's negotiators established that the language in the gross-up feature was meant to be construed broadly and to encompass many costs. For this reason, no limitations were written into the Plan. Even so, the provision was not intended to give carte blanche authority to the providers to annualize every partial cost. There is conflicting testimony regarding the meaning of the term "capital improvement" and what expenditures are included within this category. However, Sections 108.1 and 108.2 of HIM-15, of which the undersigned has taken official notice, define a capital item as follows: If a depreciable asset has, at the time of its acquisition, an estimated useful life of at least 2 years and a historical cost of at least $500, its cost must be capitalized, and written off ratably over the estimated useful life of the asset. . . * * * Betterments and improvements extend the life or increase the productivity of an asset as opposed to repairs and maintenance which either restore the asset to, or maintain it at, its normal or expected service life. Repairs and maintenance costs are always allowed in the current accounting period. With respect to the costs of betterments and improvements, the guidelines established in Section 108.1 must be followed, i.e., if the cost of a betterment or improvement to an asset is $500 or more and the estimated useful life of the asset is extended beyond its original estimated life by at least 2 years, or if the productivity of the asset is increased significantly over its original productivity, then the cost must be capitalized. The above guidelines are more credible and persuasive than the limited definition of capital item enunciated at final hearing by HRS personnel. Therefore, it is found that the HIM-15 definition is applicable to the gross-up feature and will be used to determine the validity of petitioner's claim to gross up certain expenditures. There is also conflicting testimony as to what the term "new and expanded or discontinued services" includes. Petitioner construes this item to include any costs that increase the volume of services to a resident. Therefore, petitioner posits that an increase in staffing which likewise increases services to residents is subject to annualization. Conversely, HRS construes the term to cover any costs for new or expanded services that enable a facility to provide patients with services not previously provided or to expand an existing service to more patients in the facility. The latter definition is more credible and persuasive and will be used by the undersigned in evaluating petitioner's request. Finally, petitioner interprets the term "licensure and certification requirements" to cover any costs incurred to meet staffing requirements that are required by HRS rules. According to petitioner, the category would include expenditures that are made for so-called preventive maintenance purposes and to avoid HRS sanctions. On the other hand, HRS construes the language to cover costs incurred by a provider to either meet a new licensure and certification requirement, or to correct a cited deficiency. It also points out that salary increases were intended to be covered by the inflation factor rather than through this feature of the plan. This construction of the term is more reasonable, and is hereby accepted as being the more credible and persuasive. Petitioner's Request Petitioner's fiscal year ends on December 31. According to HRS requirements its cost reports must be filed by the following March 31. In accordance with that requirement petitioner timely filed its December 31, 1984 cost reports for the thirteen facilities on or before March 31, 1985. The reports have been received into evidence as petitioner's composite exhibit 3. Attached to the reports were schedules supporting a request for gross-up of certain capital items, additions and deletions of various personnel, and union salary increases that exceeded the inflation rate. The parties have not identified the actual dollar value of the items since only the concepts are in issue. In preparing the supporting schedules, United's assistant director of research reviewed all so-called capital items purchased by the thirteen facilities during the fiscal year, and determined which were purchased after the beginning of the year.5 He then calculated the depreciation on those 5 expenditures made after the beginning of the year and has included those amounts on the supporting schedules to be annualized. Consistent with the definition contained in Sections 108.1 and 108.2 of HIM-15, those items that are in excess of $500 (after annualization), that extend the useful life of the asset for two years or more, or that increase or extend the productivity of the asset are subject to annualization. It should be noted that repairs and maintenance items, as defined in Sections 108.1 and 108.2, are excluded from this category. Petitioner next seeks to adjust its rates by grossing up the net increase in costs associated with additions and deletions of various staff during the reporting period. Any net staffing additions that provide patients with services not previously provided or that expand an existing service to more patients in a given facility are properly subject to the gross- up provision. All others should be denied. Petitioner also contends that these costs should be considered as a licensure and certification requirement since they satisfy staffing requirements under HRS rules. To the extent the filling of old positions occurred, such expenditures are appropriately covered by the gross-up provision. The remainder do not fall within the purview of the provision. Finally, petitioner seeks to adjust its rates to cover all salary increases over and above the inflation factor that were awarded to union employees pursuant to its union contract. Under petitioner's theory, if such costs were not paid, United stood to lose staff through a strike which in turn could result in licensure and certification problems. But these concerns are speculative in nature, and such an interpretation would result in automatic approval of any salary increase called for by a union contract, no matter how unreasonable it might be. Since the expenditures do not meet the previously cited criteria, they must be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner's request to have its July 1, 1985 reimbursement rates adjusted for thirteen facilities to reflect annualized costs as submitted on supplemental schedules with its 1984 cost reports be approved in part, as set forth in the conclusions of law portion of this order. The remaining part of its request should be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1986.
