The Issue Whether Petitioner utilized the correct Medicaid per diem rates at its facility for the 18-month audit period identified in the November 7, 2011, Medicaid Examination Report.
Findings Of Fact By letter dated May 8, 2012, which included the Medicaid Audit Report that is the subject of this proceeding, Respondent gave Petitioner notice of its Medicaid reimbursement rate errors, subject to Petitioner’s right to contest the determinations of error and to demonstrate that its rates were correct in an administrative hearing. A timely Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing involving disputed issues of material fact was filed on behalf of Petitioner. After filing the hearing request, Petitioner took no further action to contest Respondent’s audit results. Despite having knowledge of these proceedings through its registered agent, Petitioner failed to comply with the Initial Order or the Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions, and failed to appear at the final hearing. Based on Petitioner’s failure to appear and offer evidence, there is no evidentiary basis on which findings can be made regarding the Medicaid Audit Report, other than it was provided to Petitioner with a notice of rights.
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 dismissing the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing and adopting the Medicaid Audit Report as final agency action in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 11th day of March, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: John F. Gilroy, III, Esquire John F. Gilroy III, P.A. 1695 Metropolitan Circle, Suite 2 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Steven Lee Perry, Esquire Office of Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Stuart Williams, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact There is no genuine issue as to any of the following material facts: The Petitioner is 78 years old and, since at least 1995, has been eligible for Medicare based on her age. The Petitioner's monthly income is $594, and she has no assets or resources. Since at least 1995, she has been eligible for Medicaid based on her income and assets. F.A.C. Rule 59G-3.010(4) provides: (b) Medicare Supplemental Insurance (Part B) The monthly Medicare insurance premium is paid by the Agency directly to the Depart- ment of Health and Human Services for the Medicare and Medicaid eligible recipient. The deductible and co-insurance under Part B, Medicare, are paid for the Medicare and Medicaid eligible recipient by the Medi- caid fiscal agent. For physician services, Medicaid will cover the deductible and co- insurance only to the extent that the total payment received by the physician will not exceed the recognized Medicaid payment or, if there is no comparable Medicaid payment, 100 percent of the deductible and 75 percent of the co-insurance. In these situations, whether the physician did nor did not receive a payment from Medicaid, by billing Medicaid he is bound to the Medicaid payment schedule as payment in full. F.A.C. Rule 59G-3.230(6)(e) provides: Payment Methodology for Covered Services. * * * (e) Services provided to individuals who are covered by both Medicare and Medicaid must be billed to Medicare first. Medicaid will consider payment of the deductible and coinsurance, but in no case shall the combined Medicare and Medicaid payments exceed the maximum allowable Medicaid amount for the procedure. Pages 4-1, 4-2, 4-4, 4-5 and 4-6 and Appendix A-34-35 of The Florida Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook, HCFA-1500, Nov. 1994, incorporated by reference in F.A.C. Rule 59G-3.230(8), contain language that essentially implements F.A.C. Rules 59G-3.010(4) and 59G-3.230(6)(e). When rules on this subject initially were adopted on January 1, 1977, they did not include the challenged provisions. The challenged provisions were added by amendment adopted January 6, 1978. The preamble to the adopting rule's description of the impact of the challenged rules states that the rule "could . . . decrease . . . the number of physicians [and] result in Medicaid eligible individuals paying their own deductible and co-insurance, . . . changing physicians, or maintaining the same physician with the physician accepting a loss in income." (Fla. Admin. Weekly, Vol. 4, No. 1, Jan. 6, 1978, at 224-25.) Some Florida physicians who accept other patients, including patients eligible for Medicare based on age but not eligible for Medicaid, do not accept "dual eligible" patients like the Petitioner (i.e., patients eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid) because the physician makes less money providing services for "dual eligible" patients under the terms of F.A.C. Rules 59G-3.010(4) and 59G-3.230(6)(e) and The Florida Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook than the physician can make providing services for other patients, including patients eligible for Medicare based on age but not eligible for Medicaid. In 1995, the Petitioner's physician required her to pay him fees for service in addition to the reimbursement he received from the Respondent under the terms of F.A.C. Rules 59G-3.010(4) and 59G-3.230(6)(e) and The Florida Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook although those provisions as well as his agreement with the Respondent prohibit him from doing so. The Intervenor asserts that other Florida physicians participating the Medicaid program, likewise in violation of F.A.C. Rules 59G-3.010(4) and 59G-3.230(6)(e) and The Florida Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook as well as their agreements with the Respondent, also "attempt to collect Medicare coinsurance and deductibles from patients who are indigent."
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 Florida Life Care, Inc., d/b/a Beneva Nursing Pavilion (Beneva) and Florida Life Care, Inc., d/b/a Venice Nursing Pavilion North (Venice), the Petitioners in these cases, are both nursing homes that participate in the Florida Medicaid program and the Medicare program. T. 16. In order to receive reimbursement from Florida's Medicaid program, the Petitioners were required to submit to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) a Medicaid cost report. T. 123. The Medicaid cost report is a report by the provider of its costs and other statistics and is the basis for calculation of the Medicaid reimbursement rate for that facility. Id. The provider is responsible for the correctness of its Medicaid cost report. T. 163. The Medicaid cost report is an accounting estimate. T. 169, 162. The Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan is commonly called the Gainesville Plan, and was adopted on April 1, 1983. P. Ex. 14. The Gainesville Plan is incorporated by reference in rule 10C-7.0482, Florida Administrative Code, and establishes the manner in which Medicaid cost reports must be submitted and evaluated. P. Ex. 15. Beneva filed its first Medicaid cost report for the period covering September 7, 1982, through September 30, 1983. T. 24-25. Venice also filed its Medicaid cost report for the year ending September 30, 1983. T. 24. Both reports were filed by the Petitioners' accountants, Touche Ross & Co., on March 14, 1984, and were timely filed. P. Exs. 1 and 2; T. 24. Each of the Medicaid cost reports contained an adjustment for estimated Medicare costs. The adjustment appears in the Medicare Adjustment Schedule (MAS) of the Medicaid cost report. In so doing, the Petitioners were electing to use old cost reporting forms which allowed use of data from the Medicare cost report. Had they elected to use the new forms, there technically would have been no Medicare adjustment because the cost report calculates a Medicaid rate in a way that makes it unnecessary to delete Medicare costs. T. 143-144. The Medicare adjustment in the Medicaid cost report is designed to comply with the Gainesville Plan. T. 123. It is intended to prevent double reimbursement for the same costs. T. 124. The Medicare adjustment was taken directly from the Medicare cost report which each Petitioner had earlier submitted to Medicare. T. 25-26. The Medicare cost report is an accounting estimate, T. 169, and is the best and most reasonable estimate of costs associated with Medicare at the time that it is filed, but is subject to change after desk review, audit, or appeal. T. 12. There is no requirement imposed by HRS that changes occurring in the Medicare cost report be reported to HRS with respect to the Medicaid cost report. Venice reported a Medicare adjustment in its Medicaid cost report of $1,242,501. Beneva reported a Medicare adjustment in its Medicaid cost report of $1,798,107. T. 26. HRS audited the Medicaid cost reports of the Petitioners. HRS transmitted the audit of Venice by letter dated August 16, 1985, and transmitted the audit of Beneva by letter dated August 27, 1985. T. 29; P. Exs. 5 and 6. As a result of the audits, Venice had to reimburse HRS $43,637.57, and Beneva had to reimburse HRS $101,849.55. T. 36-37. Both letters of transmittal described in the last paragraph stated that the provider had 30 days in which to request a formal administrative hearing to contest any audit adjustment in dispute or disagreement. T. 29. Neither Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing at that time because neither objected to the audit reports. T. 31. On August 25, 1985, the Medicare cost reports of both Beneva and Venice were substantially reduced (by hundreds of thousands of dollars) as a result of a federal audit. T. 32-35, 154. Petitioners did not know that these costs would be reduced in these amounts until the federal audit was completed. T. 35. The Medicare cost reductions are the subject of a pending appeal. T. The Medicare cost reductions may change again depending upon the result of the appeal. Id. Petitioners contend that if the numbers change again on appeal, they will have to again change their Medicaid cost report for the year ending September 30, 1983. T. 74. Accounting issues which arise with respect to the Medicaid cost report are resolved by reference first to the Gainesville Plan, then to the Medicare Health Insurance Manual (HIM) 15, and then to generally accepted accounting principles. T. 78. Section IV.E. of the Gainesville Plan provides: The prospectively determined individual nursing home's rate will be adjusted retroactively to the effective date of the affected rate . . . under the following circumstances: An error was made by HRS in the calculation of the provider's rate. A provider submits an amended cost report used to determine the rate in effect. An amended cost report may be submitted in the event of a change of one percent in the reimbursement rate. The amended cost report must be filed by the filing date of the subsequent cost report. Further desk or on-site audits of cost reports used in the establishment of the prospective rate disclose a change in allowable costs in those reports. HRS interprets subparagraph 1 above to be available to correct either mathematical errors or misstatements of fact that existed at that time. T. 129. It is the policy of HRS to use the best data available with respect to the Medicaid cost report, and thus it is the policy of HRS to use the Medicare cost report as a basis for estimating Medicare costs for the Medicaid cost report when it is the best information available. T. 138, 125. This policy is reasonable. HRS relied upon the Medicaid cost report as submitted by the Petitioners' accountants in establishing the Medicaid rates for the Petitioners. As discussed above, the Medicaid cost report contained estimates of Medicare costs which were the best estimates then available. These estimates were not in error at that time (that is, these estimates were not erroneous statements of fact) even though later changed by audit. T. 133. HRS did not commit any mathematical errors in the use of Petitioners' Medicare cost estimates. HRS did not commit any error in relying upon the data submitted to it by the Petitioners. T. 128. Petitioners did not, pursuant to subparagraph 2 of the Gainesville Plan set forth above, file an amended cost report by the filing date of the subsequent Medicaid cost report. In fact, they could not have availed themselves of this provision since the deadline for filing such an amended cost report was December 31, 1984, and the Medicare cost report audit adjustment did not occur until eight months later. T. 153-154. When the Gainesville Plan was implemented, HRS no longer used or relied upon Medicare desk or on-site audits. HRS interprets subparagraph 3 of the Gainesville Plan, set forth above, to apply only to changes in allowable costs disclosed in Medicaid desk or on-site audits. T. 131. Audited information is better information than an initial report which is not audited, and is preferable to unaudited information. T. 140. It, therefore, is the policy of HRS to use audited information if it is available. This policy is reasonable. It is a generally accepted accounting principle that a change in an accounting estimate is defined as the result of new information, changing conditions, more experience, or additional information that requires revision of previous estimates. T. 133; HRS Ex. 20. It is a generally accepted accounting principle that a change in an accounting estimate should not be accounted for by restating the prior year final statements, but should be accounted for in the period in which the change occurs. T. 132. See also P. Ex. 20, p. 125. Petitioners' accounting firm, Touche Ross & Co., prepared the original Medicaid cost report, but have not returned to that report as a result of the change in Medicare cost to file a restatement of the Medicaid cost report. T. 78. Pursuant to the principles and policies described above in findings of fact 21 through 23, it is the policy of HRS to recognize material changes to the Medicare adjustment which results from an audit of the Medicare cost report; HRS recognizes such changes by recognizing a change in the Medicaid cost report, but only in the current period. T. 126, 139, 142. If the change in Medicare costs for Beneva and Venice from the year ending September 30, 1983, are accounted for in the current period (1986), the effect on current allowable reimbursement rates will be negligible because most of the effect would be to cause the reimbursement rates to exceed the reimbursement ceilings established by HRS. T. 70-71. If a provider's reimbursement rate is already at the ceiling, there is no benefit from an adjustment that would otherwise have increased the rate. T. 144. Petitioners are already at that ceiling. T. 146. If the change in Medicare costs were accounted for by revision of the 1983 costs reports, Beneva and Venice would be entitled to substantial amounts of reimbursement. T. 94-95. The parties have stipulated that the exact amounts of reimbursement are not at issue in this formal administrative proceeding, but would be determined informally should the Petitioners prevail on the legal issues presented. T. 92-93. The Petitioners applied to HRS for a retroactive revision of its 1983 Medicaid cost reports. P. Ex. 16 and 17. By letter dated February 28, 1986, HRS denied the request for retroactive revision of the 1983 Medicaid cost reports. P. Ex. 18. The letter of denial did not inform the Petitioners of their right to request a formal administrative hearing regarding the denial, and did not specify the time in which such a request could be made. Id. Within 30 days of the date of the letter denying the request for retroactive revision of the 1983 Medicaid cost reports, the Petitioners in writing requested formal administrative hearings concerning the denials as to that issue. P. Ex. 19. HRS has never allowed a retroactive amendment of a closed cost report in the circumstances presented in this case. T. 127, 191-92. Were it to do so, it would turn the Medicaid reimbursement plan into a retroactive reimbursement plan because cost reports would continue to be changed retrospectively as changes in the underlying data occur. T. 127, 171. A second issue in this case is whether HRS has correctly applied the low occupancy provision of the Gainesville Plan to Beneva. On October 30, 1985, some eight days after being notified by HRS that HRS intended to make a low occupancy adjustment to Beneva, Beneva wrote to HRS asserting that it had incorrectly applied a low occupancy adjustment to Beneva. T. 46; P. Ex. 14. Prior to this time, HRS had not informed Beneva of a right to request a formal administrative hearing as to this issue, or the time limits for making such a request. There then ensued several conferences between HRS and the Petitioners concerning the low occupancy adjustment and the Medicare adjustment. T. 54, 90- On February 7 and 21, 1986, Petitioners wrote to HRS concerning the dispute over the Medicare adjustment. P. Exs. 16 and 17. No mention is made in these letters of the low occupancy issue. As discussed in finding of fact 27, by letter dated February 28, 1986, HRS denied the Petitioners' requests with respect to the Medicare adjustment. The denial does not mention the low occupancy adjustment, and only refers to the letters of February 7 and 28, 1986. P. Ex. 18. On March 26, 1986, the Petitioners requested a formal administrative hearing only with respect to the Medicare issue. P. Ex. 19. However, on June 5, 1986, Beneva filed a petition for formal administrative hearing (actually a first amended petition), and paragraph 7 of that petition raises the issue of the low occupancy adjustment. Prior to June 5, 1986, HRS had not informed Beneva of its right to request a formal administrative hearing as to this issue or the time limits for making such a request. Section V.B.7.e. of the Gainesville Plan calculates an adjusted per diem by multiplying each of the per diem components by a fraction that has as its numerator the individual facility occupancy level." P. Ex. 15, p. 33. Thus, the lower the individual facility occupancy level, the smaller the fraction, resulting in lower per diem allowance. Section V.B.7.f.2. of the Gainesville Plan provides that the occupancy adjustment in subparagraph e above "will not apply to . . . facilities with 18 or fewer months of operating experience." P. Ex. 15, p. 33. Beneva commenced operation as a nursing home on September 7, 1982. T. 25. On the day that it opened, the occupancy of Beneva was very low. It increased during the first year, and had an average occupancy of about 57 percent in the first 13 months. T. 43. The average annual occupancy of Beneva in 1984 was 83 percent. In 1985 it was 95 percent. T. 47; P. Ex. 14. HRS could have obtained these statistics from Beneva if it had wanted to. T. 201. HRS applied the low occupancy adjustment to the per diem rates at Beneva for the months beginning April 1, 1984, to June 30, 1985. T. 43, 50, 63. April 1984, was the nineteenth month from the commencement of operations at Beneva. T. 194. HRS used the occupancy rate for the first 13 months of operation (57 percent) in this low occupancy adjustment. T. 43. The reason for using the occupancy rate for the first 13 months is that HRS uses the occupancy rate for the last cost report (in this case, the first cost report for the period ending September 30, 1983) to set rates for the prospective period. T. 200. HRS reasons that the same cost report used to set the prospective rates should be used for all purposes, including ascertainment of the "individual facility occupancy level," the numerator in the occupancy adjustment fraction in section V.B.7.e. of the Gainesville Plan. T. 202. It further reasons that this is required in order that the Medicaid reimbursement program be a prospective plan (based upon a fixed historical operation period, including all statistics associated with that cast) rather than upon current data. T. 212, 222-224. A new facility is expected to have low occupancy during its initial months of operation. T. 195. However, since some patient care costs are relatively fixed, a lower occupancy results in a higher per diem because the per diem cost is simply costs divided by patient days. T. 195-96. In this sense, start-up per diem cost rates are temporarily high due to the temporarily low occupancy. Id. The low occupancy adjustment has the effect of containing health care costs by adjusting this temporarily and unusually high per diem downward. T. 196-197, 192. It serves to partially preclude the receipt of an unwarranted high per diem cost reimbursement in a period when occupancy is relatively high. Id. HRS's interpretation of the method for applying the occupancy adjustment in the Gainesville Plan is an unwritten HRS policy. T. 202-203. HRS has applied this interpretation in the same manner to other Medicaid providers. T. 195, 214. As a result of application of the low occupancy adjustment, Beneva had its per diem reimbursement reduced by $15 to $18. T. 45, 233. If HRS had used the occupancy rate for 1984 (83 percent), there would have been very little impact upon Beneva's per diem rates. T. 207.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter its final order or orders denying retrospective adjustment to the fiscal year 1983 Medicaid cost reports of the Petitioners, and denying the requested alteration to the occupancy adjustment as applied to the Petitioner, Florida Living Care, Inc., d/b/a Beneva Nursing Pavilion. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st of June 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June 1987. Appendix to Recommended Order in DOAH Case Numbers 86-2418 and 86-2419 The following is an explanation of the reasons for rejection of findings of fact proposed by the parties. The numbers correspond to the numbers used by the parties. Proposed findings of fact not discussed in this appendix have been adopted as findings of fact in this Recommended Order. Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioners: 13. In the last sentence, the verb "would" is rejected as a matter of law in this Recommended Order. The sentence has, however, been adopted as the contention of the Petitioners. 15. This proposed finding has been adopted with the addition of the finding that the recalculation is to be done only in the current period. 27. While the occupancy rates for 1983, 1984, and 1985 are provided by the evidence, there does not appear to be any evidence as to the occupancy rate on April 1, 1984. 31, 33, 37, 38, 40, 42, 44, 45, and 47. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact adopted in the Recommended Order, and are not necessary. The only portion of this proposed finding that is marginally relevant is the matter of efficiency of operation. Moreover, HRS had adequately explained its policy for interpretation of the low occupancy adjustment, and did not have to have specific evidence as to the efficiency of Beneva. If Beneva thought that that evidence would be useful, it could have presented it. The remainder of the proposed finding concerns whether HRS had evidence that Beneva was receiving a reimbursement rate higher than similar providers, or was receiving reimbursement in excess of its allowable cost on April 1, 1984. Again, HRS adequately explained its incipient policy in general terms, and did not need to present specific evidence concerning Beneva. But more important, the issue is whether the per diem costs of Beneva as reported to HRS for the year ending September 30, 1983, were normal, or unusually high as assumed by HRS in its interpretation of the Gainesville Plan. The reimbursement rate of Beneva is not relevant. There is no testimony at the record cited that Beneva was operating efficiently. The witness did not respond to the question and give any evidence concerning efficiency of operation. With respect to the remainder of the proposed finding of fact, whether or not Beneva was operating at a reimbursement rate under the caps on April 1, 1984, sheds little light on whether Beneva's Medicaid costs for the period ending September 30, 1983, as reported in the Medicaid cost report at issue in this case were normal, or unusually high as assumed by HRS in its interpretation of the Gainesville Plan. See the discussion with respect to proposed finding of fact 35. 46. Rejected for the reasons discussed in finding of fact 18. Moreover, it would have been error for HRS to have allowed the revisions requested by Mr. Fox because it would have been incorrect to revise previous accounting estimates. A change in an accounting estimate is to be made in the current period. Finding of fact 22. 50. This proposed finding of fact is not relevant because double reimbursement is not an issue raised by any party. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: 4. Whether the August 1985, audit reports gave the Petitioners a "point of entry" is a question of law. It is true that these were points of entry, but not with respect to the issues raised in these cases. Thus, the proposed finding is irrelevant as well. 12. The record does not support the proposed finding that FLC "did not wish to incorporate the change in the Medicare adjustment in its later cost reports." There is no evidence of what FLC wished to do. A finding has been made that it would not have benefited FLC to have sought such a revision. 19. This proposed finding is a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Michael J. Bittman, Esquire R. Bruce McKibben, Esquire Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire DEMPSEY & GOLDSMITH P. O. Box 10651 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Petitioner's Medicaid provider number should be cancelled for the reason stated in Respondent's October 1, 1995, letter to Petitioner?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is a provider of community mental health services. It provides these services to residents of Palm Beach County and the surrounding areas. Some of the services it provides are unique to the area it serves. Petitioner provides services to Medicaid recipients pursuant to a Medicaid provider agreement dated September 6, 1994, paragraphs 8 and 9 of which provide as follows: The provider and the Department agree to abide by the Florida Administrative Code, Florida Statutes, policies, procedures, manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program and Federal laws and regulations. The agreement may be terminated upon thirty days written notice by either party. The Depart- ment may terminate this agreement in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has attempted to enter into a contract with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health office (hereinafter referred to as "ADM"), but to date has been unable to do so because ADM has not had the money to fund such a contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered terminating Petitioner's provider agreement and cancelling its provider number on the grounds that it "does not have a contract with the [Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services] ADM [Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health] office." DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of February, 1996, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene Silvernail, Esquire Forest Hill Counseling Center 2624 Forest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Gordon B. Scott, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Fort Knox Number 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Fort Knox Number 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Fort Knox Number 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent applied the proper reimbursement principles to Petitioners' initial Medicaid rate setting, and whether elements of detrimental reliance exist so as to require Respondent to establish a particular initial rate for Petitioners' facilities.
Findings Of Fact There are nine Petitioners in this case. Each of them is a long-term health care facility (nursing home) operated under independent and separate legal entities, but, generally, under the umbrella of a single owner, Tzvi "Steve" Bogomilsky. The issues in this case are essentially the same for all nine Petitioners, but the specific monetary impact on each Petitioner may differ. For purposes of addressing the issues at final hearing, only one of the Petitioners, Madison Pointe Rehabilitation and Health Center (Madison Pointe), was discussed, but the pertinent facts are relevant to each of the other Petitioners as well. Each of the Petitioners has standing in this case. The Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by each Petitioner was timely and satisfied minimum requirements. In September 2008, Bogomilsky caused to be filed with AHCA a Change of Licensed Operator ("CHOP") application for Madison Pointe.1 The purpose of that application was to allow a new entity owned by Bogomilsky to become the authorized licensee of that facility. Part and parcel of the CHOP application was a Form 1332, PFA. The PFA sets forth projected revenues, expenses, costs and charges anticipated for the facility in its first year of operation by the new operator. The PFA also contained projected (or budgeted) balance sheets and a projected Medicaid cost report for the facility. AHCA is the state agency responsible for licensing nursing homes in this state. AHCA also is responsible for managing the federal Medicaid program within this state. Further, AHCA monitors nursing homes within the state for compliance with state and federal regulations, both operating and financial in nature. The AHCA Division of Health Quality Assurance, Bureau of Long-Term Care Services, Long-Term Care Unit ("Long-Term Care Unit") is responsible for reviewing and approving CHOP applications and issuance of an operating license to the new licensee. The AHCA Division of Health Quality Assurance, Bureau of Health Facility Regulation, Financial Analysis Unit ("Financial Analysis Unit") is responsible for reviewing the PFA contained in the CHOP application and determining an applicant's financial ability to operate a facility in accordance with the applicable statutes and rules. Neither the Long-Term Care Unit nor the Financial Analysis Unit is a part of the Florida Medicaid Program. Madison Pointe also chose to submit a Medicaid provider application to the Medicaid program fiscal agent to enroll as a Medicaid provider and to be eligible for Medicaid reimbursement. (Participation by nursing homes in the Medicaid program is voluntary.) The Medicaid provider application was reviewed by the Medicaid Program Analysis Office (MPA) which, pursuant to its normal practices, reviewed the application and set an interim per diem rate for reimbursement. Interim rate-setting is dependent upon legislative direction provided in the General Appropriations Act and also in the Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (the Plan). The Plan is created by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS (formerly known as the Health Care Financing Administration) is a federal agency within the Department of Health and Human Services. CMS is responsible for administering the Medicare and Medicaid programs, utilizing state agencies for assistance when appropriate. In its PFA filed with the Financial Analysis Unit, Madison Pointe proposed an interim Medicaid rate of $203.50 per patient day (ppd) as part of its budgeted revenues. The projected interim rate was based on Madison Pointe's expected occupancy rate, projected expenses, and allowable costs. The projected rate was higher than the previous owner's actual rate in large part based on Madison Pointe's anticipation of pending legislative action concerning Medicaid reimbursement issues. That is, Madison Pointe projected higher spending and allowable costs based on expected increases proposed in the upcoming legislative session. Legislative Changes to the Medicaid Reimbursement System During the 2007 Florida Legislative Session, the Legislature addressed the status of Medicaid reimbursement for long-term care facilities. During that session, the Legislature enacted the 2007 Appropriations Act, Chapter 2007-72, Laws of Florida. The industry proposed, and the Legislature seemed to accept, that it was necessary to rebase nursing homes in the Medicaid program. Rebasing is a method employed by the Agency periodically to calibrate the target rate system and adjust Medicaid rates (pursuant to the amount of funds allowed by the Legislature) to reflect more realistic allowable expenditures by providers. Rebasing had previously occurred in 1992 and 2002. The rebasing would result in a "step-up" in the Medicaid rate for providers. In response to a stated need for rebasing, the 2007 Legislature earmarked funds to address Medicaid reimbursement. The Legislature passed Senate Bill 2800, which included provisions for modifying the Plan as follows: To establish a target rate class ceiling floor equal to 90 percent of the cost- based class ceiling. To establish an individual provider- specific target floor equal to 75 percent of the cost-based class ceiling. To modify the inflation multiplier to equal 2.0 times inflation for the individual provider-specific target. (The inflation multiplier for the target rate class ceiling shall remain at 1.4 times inflation.) To modify the calculation of the change of ownership target to equal the previous provider's operating and indirect patient care cost per diem (excluding incentives), plus 50 percent of the difference between the previous providers' per diem (excluding incentives) and the effect class ceiling and use an inflation multiplier of 2.0 times inflation. The Plan was modified in accordance with this legislation with an effective date of July 1, 2007. Four relevant sentences from the modified Plan are relevant to this proceeding, to wit: For a new provider with no cost history resulting from a change of ownership or operator, where the previous provider participated in the Medicaid program, the interim operating and patient care per diems shall be the lesser of: the class reimbursement ceiling based on Section V of this Plan, the budgeted per diems approved by AHCA based on Section III of this Plan, or the previous providers' operating and patient care cost per diem (excluding incentives), plus 50% of the difference between the previous providers' per diem (excluding incentives) and the class ceiling. The above new provider ceilings, based on the district average per diem or the previous providers' per diem, shall apply to all new providers with a Medicaid certification effective on or after July 1, 1991. The new provider reimbursement limitation above, based on the district average per diem or the previous providers' per diem, which affects providers already in the Medicaid program, shall not apply to these same providers beginning with the rate semester in which the target reimbursement provision in Section V.B.16. of this plan does not apply. This new provider reimbursement limitation shall apply to new providers entering the Medicaid program, even if the new provider enters the program during a rate semester in which Section V.B.16 of this plan does not apply. [The above cited sentences will be referred to herein as Plan Sentence 1, Plan Sentence 2, etc.] Madison Pointe's Projected Medicaid Rate Relying on the proposed legislation, including the proposed rebasing and step-up in rate, Madison Pointe projected an interim Medicaid rate of $203.50 ppd for its initial year of operation. Madison Pointe's new projected rate assumed a rebasing by the Legislature to eliminate existing targets, thereby, allowing more reimbursable costs. Although no legislation had been passed at that time, Madison Pointe's consultants made calculations and projections as to how the rebasing would likely affect Petitioners. Those projections were the basis for the $203.50 ppd interim rate. The projected rate with limitations applied (i.e., if Madison Pointe did not anticipate rebasing or believe the Plan revisions applied) would have been $194.26. The PFA portion of Madison Pointe's CHOP application was submitted to AHCA containing the $203.50 ppd interim rate. The Financial Analysis Unit, as stated, is responsible for, inter alia, reviewing PFAs submitted as part of a CHOP application. In the present case, Ryan Fitch was the person within the Financial Analysis Unit assigned responsibility for reviewing Madison Pointe's PFA. Fitch testified that the purpose of his review was to determine whether the applicant had projected sufficient monetary resources to successfully operate the facility. This would include a contingency fund (equal to one month's anticipated expenses) available to the applicant and reasonable projections of cost and expenses versus anticipated revenues.2 Upon his initial review of the Madison Pointe PFA, Fitch determined that the projected Medicaid interim rate was considerably higher than the previous operator's actual rate. This raised a red flag and prompted Fitch to question the propriety of the proposed rate. In his omissions letter to the applicant, Fitch wrote (as the fourth bullet point of the letter), "The projected Medicaid rate appears to be high relative to the current per diem rate and the rate realized in 2006 cost reports (which includes ancillaries and is net of contractual adjustments). Please explain or revise the projections." In response to the omissions letter, Laura Wilson, a health care accountant working for Madison Pointe, sent Fitch an email on June 27, 2008. The subject line of the email says, "FW: Omissions Letter for 11 CHOW applications."3 Then the email addressed several items from the omissions letter, including a response to the fourth bullet point which says: Item #4 - Effective July 1, 2007, it is anticipated that AHCA will be rebasing Medicaid rates (the money made available through elimination of some of Medicaid's participation in covering Medicare Part A bad debts). Based on discussions with AHCA and the two Associations (FHCA & FAHSA), there is absolute confidence that this rebasing will occur. The rebasing is expected to increase the Medicaid rates at all of the facilities based on the current operator's spending levels. As there is no definitive methodology yet developed, the rebased rates in the projections have been calculated based on the historical methodologies that were used in the 2 most recent rebasings (1992 and 2002). The rates also include the reestablishment of the 50% step-up that is also anticipated to begin again. The rebasing will serve to increase reimbursement and cover costs which were previously limited by ceilings. As noted in Note 6 of the financials, if something occurs which prevents the rebasing, Management will be reducing expenditures to align them with the available reimbursement. It is clear Madison Pointe's projected Medicaid rate was based upon proposed legislative actions which would result in changes to the Plan. It is also clear that should those changes not occur, Madison Pointe was going to be able to address the shortfall by way of reduced expenditures. Each of those facts was relevant to the financial viability of Madison Pointe's proposed operations. Madison Pointe's financial condition was approved by Fitch based upon his review of the PFA and the responses to his questions. Madison Pointe became the new licensed operator of the facility. That is, the Long-Term Care Unit deemed the application to have met all requirements, including financial ability to operate, and issued a license to the applicant. Subsequently, MPA provided to Madison Pointe its interim Medicaid rate. MPA advised Madison Pointe that its rate would be $194.55 ppd, some $8.95 ppd less than Madison Pointe had projected in its PFA (but slightly more than Madison Pointe would have projected with the 50 percent limitation from Plan Sentence 1 in effect, i.e., $194.26). The PFA projected 25,135 annual Medicaid patient days, which multiplied by $8.95, would equate to a reduction in revenues of approximately $225,000 for the first year of operation.4 MPA assigned Madison Pointe's interim Medicaid rate by applying the provisions of the Plan as it existed as of the date Madison Pointe's new operating license was issued, i.e., September 1, 2007. Specifically, MPA limited Madison Pointe's per diem to 50 percent of the difference between the previous provider's per diem and the applicable ceilings, as dictated by the changes to the Plan. (See Plan Sentence 1 set forth above.) Madison Pointe's projected Medicaid rate in the PFA had not taken any such limitations into account because of Madison Pointe's interpretation of the Plan provisions. Specifically, that Plan Sentence 3 applies to Madison Pointe and, therefore, exempts Madison Pointe from the new provider limitation set forth in Plan Sentences 1 and 2. However, Madison Pointe was not "already in the Medicaid program" as of July 1, 2007, as called for in Plan Sentence 3. Rather, Madison Pointe's commencement date in the Medicaid program was September 1, 2007. Plan Sentence 1 is applicable to a "new provider with no cost history resulting from a change of ownership or operator, where the previous operator participated in the Medicaid program." Madison Pointe falls within that definition. Thus, Madison Pointe's interim operating and patient care per diems would be the lesser of: (1) The class reimbursement ceiling based on Section V of the Plan; (2) The budgeted per diems approved by AHCA based on Section III of the Plan; or (3) The previous provider's operating and patient care cost per diem (excluding incentives), plus 50 percent of the difference between the previous provider's per diem and the class ceiling. Based upon the language of Plan Sentence 1, MPA approved an interim operating and patient care per diem of $194.55 for Madison Pointe. Plan Sentence 2 is applicable to Madison Pointe, because it applies to all new providers with a Medicaid certification effective after July 1, 1991. Madison Pointe's certification was effective September 1, 2007. Plan Sentence 3 is the primary point of contention between the parties. AHCA correctly contends that Plan Sentence 3 is not applicable to Petitioner, because it addresses rebasing that occurred on July 1, 2007, i.e., prior to Madison Pointe coming into the Medicaid system. The language of Plan Sentence 3 is clear and unambiguous that it applies to "providers already in the Medicaid program." Plan Sentence 4 is applicable to Madison Pointe, which entered the system during a rate semester, in which no other provider had a new provider limitation because of the rebasing. Again, the language is unambiguous that "[t]his new provider reimbursement limitation shall apply to new providers entering the Medicaid program. . . ." Madison Pointe is a new provider entering the program. Detrimental Reliance and Estoppel Madison Pointe submitted its CHOP application to the Long-Term Care Unit of AHCA for approval. That office has the clear responsibility for reviewing and approving (or denying) CHOP applications for nursing homes. The Long-Term Care Unit requires, as part of the CHOP application, submission of the PFA which sets forth certain financial information used to determine whether the applicant has the financial resources to operate the nursing home for which it is applying. The Long-Term Care Unit has another office within AHCA, the Financial Analysis Unit, to review the PFA. The Financial Analysis Unit is found within the Bureau of Health Facility Regulation. That Bureau is responsible for certificates of need and other issues, but has no authority concerning the issuance, or not, of a nursing home license. Nor does the Financial Analysis Unit have any authority to set an interim Medicaid rate. Rather, the Financial Analysis Unit employs certain individuals who have the skills and training necessary to review financial documents and determine an applicant's financial ability to operate. A nursing home licensee must obtain Medicaid certification if it wishes to participate in the program. Madison Pointe applied for Medicaid certification, filing its application with a Medicaid intermediary which works for CMS. The issuance of a Medicaid certification is separate and distinct from the issuance of a license to operate. When Madison Pointe submitted its PFA for review, it was aware that an office other than the Long-Term Care Unit would be reviewing the PFA. Madison Pointe believed the two offices within AHCA would communicate with one another, however. But even if the offices communicated with one another, there is no evidence that the Financial Analysis Unit has authority to approve or disapprove a CHOP application. That unit's sole purpose is to review the PFA and make a finding regarding financial ability to operate. Likewise, MPA--which determines the interim Medicaid rate for a newly licensed operator--operates independently of the Long-Term Care Unit or the Financial Analysis Unit. While contained within the umbrella of AHCA, each office has separate and distinct duties and responsibilities. There is no competent evidence that an applicant for a nursing home license can rely upon its budgeted interim rate--as proposed by the applicant and approved as reasonable by MPA--as the ultimate interim rate set by the Medicaid Program Analysis Office. At no point in time did Fitch tell Madison Pointe that a rate of $203.50 ppd would be assigned. Rather, he said that the rate seemed high; Madison Pointe responded that it could "eliminate expenditures to align them with the available reimbursement." The interim rate proposed by the applicant is an estimate made upon its own determination of possible facts and anticipated operating experience. The interim rate assigned by MPA is calculated based on the applicant's projections as affected by provisions in the Plan. Furthermore, it is clear that Madison Pointe was on notice that its proposed interim rate seemed excessive. In response to that notice, Madison Pointe did not reduce the projected rate, but agreed that spending would be curtailed if a lower interim rate was assigned. There was, in short, no reliance by Madison Pointe on Fitch's approval of the PFA as a de facto approval of the proposed interim rate. MPA never made a representation to Madison Pointe as to the interim rate it would receive until after the license was approved. There was, therefore, no subsequent representation made to Madison Pointe that was contrary to a previous statement. The Financial Analysis Unit's approval of the PFA was done with a clear and unequivocal concern about the propriety of the rate as stated. The approval was finalized only after a representation by Madison Pointe that it would reduce expenditures if a lower rate was imposed. Thus, Madison Pointe did not change its position based on any representation made by AHCA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, approving the Medicaid interim per diem rates established by AHCA and dismissing each of the Amended Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 23rd day of February, 2009.
