The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) Whether Respondent violated sections 409.913, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Sanction Letter dated January 18, 2012, by failing to have documentation evidencing the receipt of Core Assurances training in six employees' files; failing to have documentation evidencing the receipt of required HIPAA training in one employee file; and failing to have documentation evidencing the receipt of Zero Tolerance training in one employee file2/; and (2) if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program pursuant to chapter 409. Petitioner's duties include operating a program to oversee the activities of Medicaid recipients, and providers and their representatives, to ensure that fraudulent and abusive behavior and neglect of recipients occur to the minimum extent possible, and to recover overpayments and impose sanctions as appropriate. § 409.913(1), Fla. Stat. To that end, Petitioner is authorized to conduct investigations of Medicaid providers to determine compliance with the Medicaid program. § 409.913(2), Fla. Stat. Respondent is an enrolled Medicaid provider providing home-based and community-based services to the developmentally disabled in a residential habilitation setting.3/ Respondent became an enrolled Medicaid provider in April 2004, and has been an enrolled Medicaid provider at all times pertinent to this proceeding. Medicaid Provider Agreement To become enrolled as a Medicaid provider for the developmentally disabled in Florida, a provider applies with Petitioner and the Agency for Persons with Disabilities ("APD"). If the provider is approved for enrollment in the Medicaid program, it enters into a Medicaid Provider Agreement ("MPA") with Petitioner. The MPA establishes the terms and conditions of the provider's participation in the Medicaid program. A key condition is that the provider agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws, including rules, regulations, and statements of policy applicable to the Medicaid program, including the applicable Medicaid Handbooks. The Florida Medicaid Development Disabilities Waiver Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook, dated November 2010 ("DD Handbook"), and the Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook, dated July 2008 ("General Handbook"), are applicable to this proceeding. Petitioner's Inspection of Respondent's Facility On September 28, 2011, Ms. Gina Selwitz, an Inspector Specialist with Petitioner's Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity, conducted an unannounced site inspection at Respondent's facility to review Respondent's employee records and recipient files for compliance with applicable Medicaid program requirements. As part of the inspection, Ms. Selwitz reviewed the records of six employees for documentation that they had received required training in a range of areas, including Core Competency, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA") compliance, and Zero Tolerance Training, as required under state and federal law and rules and the General Handbook and DD Handbook. Ms. Selwitz determined that required documentation showing Core Assurances training was missing from six of Respondent's employees' files. She also determined that required documentation showing HIPAA training was missing from the file of one of Respondent's employees. Additionally, she determined that required documentation showing Zero Tolerance training was missing from the file of one of Respondent's employees. Demand Letter Regarding Submittal of Missing Information While conducting the compliance inspection, Ms. Selwitz hand-delivered to Respondent a demand letter dated September 28, 2011. The demand letter stated in pertinent part: Pursuant to Section 409.913, Florida Statutes (F.S.), this is official notice that the Agency requests the documentation for services paid by the Florida Medicaid program to the above provider number. The Medicaid-related records to substantiate billing for the recipients identified on the enclosed printout are due within fifteen (15) calendar days of your receipt of this notification. In addition, please complete the attached questionnaire and submit it along with the copies of the Medicaid- related records. Please submit the documentation and the attached Certificate of Completeness of Records to the Agency within this timeframe, or other mutually agreed upon timeframe. The referenced questionnaire and printout were not attached to the demand letter. Ms. Selwitz provided Respondent a handwritten list of items that she determined were missing from its files and that needed to be submitted in response to the demand letter. Respondent's Responses to Demand Letter and Sanction Letter On October 12, 2011, Respondent's representative, Mr. Orukotan, sent Ms. Selwitz electronic mail requesting that she send the editable Developmental Services Medicaid Provider Questionnaire form so Respondent could complete and submit it by October 14, 2011. After further electronic mail exchange, Ms. Selwitz provided the form to Mr. Orukotan on October 18, 2011. Respondent submitted the completed Questionnaire on November 3, 2011. In addition, Respondent submitted its Certificate of Completeness of Records and the other items that were requested in Ms. Selwitz's handwritten list provided with the demand letter. The handwritten list did not identify employee training documentation for Core Assurances, HIPAA, and Zero Tolerance as missing from Respondent's files; accordingly, Respondent did not provide that documentation as part of its November 3, 2011, submittal. Subsequently, Petitioner issued a Sanction Letter, dated January 18, 2012, which in part alleged that Respondent failed to have documentation in its files evidencing the receipt of employee training in Core Assurances, HIPAA, and Zero Tolerance. After receiving the Sanction Letter, Respondent submitted documentation of employee training in Core Assurances, HIPAA, and Zero Tolerance to demonstrate its compliance with the Medicaid program documentation requirements. Ms. Selwitz claimed that in addition to the handwritten list, she had given Respondent a typewritten list that identified other specific information, including the employee training documentation, that she determined missing from Respondent's files and needed to be provided pursuant to the demand letter. Respondent credibly testified that he never received this typewritten list of additional requested items. In support of Ms. Selwitz's testimony, Petitioner provided, as a supplemental exhibit, a typewritten form entitled "Residential Rehabilitation Provider." At the top of the form were three spaces to be filled in with the facility's name and the date and time of inspection; however, no information regarding Respondent's facility or its inspection was filled in the spaces, which were left blank. The form generally requested a range of items, including "[a]ll employee records (include Level II (FDLE and FBI) background check information)[4/]" but did not specifically request that Core Assurances, HIPAA, or Zero Tolerance employee training documentation be provided. The form further stated: "please provide the following records so that they may be reviewed on-site . . ."; This statement was followed by a list of items. However, Petitioner's facility inspection checklist and notes did not identify these items as missing from Respondent's files.5/ Rather than comprising an additional list of information that Ms. Selwitz prepared and provided to Respondent to specifically identify missing information to be submitted pursuant to the demand letter, the Residential Rehabilitation Provider list instead appears to be a general form list that Petitioner provides before or at the time of facility inspection. Under any circumstances, the form's lack of specificity regarding employee training documentation for Core Assurances, HIPAA, and Zero Tolerance would not have given Respondent notice that Petitioner had determined such documentation was missing from its files and needed to be provided as part of its response to the demand letter. The credible evidence establishes that Respondent was not given this typewritten form or otherwise notified that Petitioner had determined that employee training documentation for Core Assurances, HIPAA, and Zero Tolerance was missing from its files and needed to be provided pursuant to the demand letter. Respondent's Compliance With Record-Keeping Requirements Section 409.913, Petitioner's rules, the DD and General Handbooks, and federal law require that providers keep and produce as required, specified employee records, including records demonstrating training in a range of areas, including Core Assurances, HIPAA, and Zero Tolerance. Ms. Selwitz testified that if information determined to be missing from a provider's files during a compliance inspection is timely submitted pursuant to the demand letter, the provider is deemed to be in compliance with the applicable record-keeping and document production requirements in state and federal Medicaid law. Here, Petitioner did not notify Respondent that it had determined that certain employee training documentation was missing from its files. Thus, Respondent was not given the opportunity to establish compliance with the record-keeping and document production requirements by timely submitting this documentation in accordance with Petitioner's demand letter. Mr. Orukotan testified that Respondent kept the requested documentation in its employee files and would have provided it, had Petitioner notified Respondent that its inspection determined the documentation was missing. His testimony, which is bolstered by the fact that Respondent did timely submit all information pursuant to the handwritten list provided with the demand letter, is deemed credible and persuasive. As previously noted, Respondent submitted the employee training documentation upon being informed, pursuant to the Sanction Letter, that Petitioner had determined such documentation was missing from its files.6/ Under the present circumstances——where Petitioner failed to afford Respondent an opportunity to demonstrate compliance by timely responding to its demand letter, and where Respondent, when informed of the deficiencies, submitted the requested documentation——the undersigned determines, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Respondent violated chapter 409, Petitioner's applicable rules, the DD Handbook, the General Handbook, and federal law, as charged in the January 18, 2012, Sanction Letter.7/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order determining that Respondent did not violate federal and state Medicaid laws as charged in the January 18, 2012 Sanction Letter. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 2012.
The Issue In his Proposed Recommended Order, counsel for Petitioner concedes that the crime to which Respondent pleaded guilty is classified as a federal misdemeanor, not a felony. For that reason, Count II of the Complaint is no longer in issue. The remaining issue for determination is whether the crime to which Respondent pleaded guilty involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and if so, what disciplinary action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are adopted, verbatim, from both parties' Proposed Recommended Orders: Petitioner is a state governmental licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the Rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent Bruce E. Walker is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0110184 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license to Respondent was as a salesman, Quest and Company, LTD, 13829 - 80th Avenue North, Seminole, Florida 33542. On September 27, 1985, in federal court, Respondent was convicted upon his plea of guilty to the criminal offense of conspiracy involving adulterated and misbranded medication. Respondent was sentenced to be imprisoned for one year but the imprisonment was suspended. Respondent was placed on probation for 18 months of community service, fined $1,000.00 and a $25.00 special assessment was imposed. The crime of which the Respondent was convicted is classified as a federal misdemeanor by law. The Respondent was convicted of the federal misdemeanor as a result of a plea to a charge of conspiracy although the Respondent quite candidly still denies that he conspired to do anything wrong, other than to provide unused free medication samples received from various drug manufacturing companies such as Pfizer, Upjohn, or whoever else called upon his office. The unused medication samples are quite often provided to the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) or other charitable health care providing services. When the Respondent was approached by an individual offering to take one or more several [SIC] large sackfuls of the free medical samples and dispose of them, the Respondent was more than willing. Previously, the Respondent had been able to have the unused medicine samples incinerated by a friend at a funeral home. The Respondent in fact provided medicines to this individual on two occasions, one of which was after he had received payment from his "Cocon- spirator." (Transcript pages 25-29.) The parties concur in the official recognition of Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Procedure Code, in particular Section 20.30, Chapters 20, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent was one of a large number of practicing physicians in Florida and elsewhere who were drawn into a scheme for the sale of free sample medications. While Dr. Walker solicited some free drugs from companies, he either used those personally or gave them to patients whom he knew could not otherwise afford them. The samples he sold were unsolicited surplus. None were "controlled substances." Dr. Walker sold the samples on two occasions. On the first occasion he was approached by an individual whom he did not know; he gave the individual two garbage bags full of the samples, without any discussion of payment. Later, an envelope with money was left with his secretary. He had some misgivings about the money but did not question the individual when the second collection of samples was made. When the F.B.I. contacted him regarding their investigation, he cooperated fully. This was acknowledged and taken into consideration by the Government when he was sentenced. Dr. Walker was released from probation on March 26, 1987. The suspension of his medical license has been stayed pending the outcome of an appeal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint in this case be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 22nd day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2183 The following constitute my rulings on the parties' Proposed Findings of Fact. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact #1-7 Adopted in Paragraph #1. (no paragraph #3 provided.) Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact #1-7 Adopted in Paragraph #1. (no paragraph #3 provided.) #7-14 Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. #15 Adopted in Paragraph #2. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Gardner W. Beckett, Jr., Esquire 123 Eighth Street, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) Whether Respondent violated section 409.913, Florida Statutes, by failing to have documentation evidencing the receipt of current Zero Tolerance training in three employees' files; failing to have documentation showing that one employee has a high school diploma or equivalent; failing to have documentation of an implementation plan in one consumer's file; failing to have documentation of quarterly summaries in one consumer's file; and failing to have written policies and procedures addressing the staff training plan and specifying how pre-service and in- service activities will be carried out, including HIV/AIDS training, cardiopulmonary resuscitation training, and all other training mandated pursuant to section 381.0035; and (2) if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Medicaid Provider Agreement Petitioner is the state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program2/ pursuant to chapter 409. Petitioner's duties include operating a program to oversee the activities of Medicaid recipients, providers, and their representatives to ensure that fraudulent and abusive behavior and neglect of recipients occur to the minimum extent possible, and to recover overpayments and impose sanctions as appropriate. § 409.913(1), Fla. Stat. To that end, Petitioner is authorized to conduct investigations of Medicaid providers to determine compliance with the Medicaid program. § 409.913(2), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an enrolled Medicaid provider3/ providing residential rehabilitation and companion care services to the developmentally disabled pursuant to a valid Medicaid Provider Agreement ("MPA") with Petitioner.4/ The MPA establishes the terms and conditions of an enrolled provider's participation in the Medicaid program. A key condition is that the provider agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws, including rules, regulations, and statements of policy applicable to the Medicaid program, including the Medicaid Handbooks. The Florida Medicaid Developmental Disabilities Waiver Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook, dated November 2010 ("Disabilities Handbook"), and the Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook, dated July 2008 ("General Handbook"), are among the laws and policies applicable to this proceeding. Petitioner's Inspection of Respondent's Facility On September 27, 2011, Ms. Gina Selwitz, an Inspector Specialist with Petitioner's Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity ("MPI"),5/ along with another employee of Respondent's Bureau of MPI and a representative from the United States Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, conducted a site inspection at Respondent's facility, to determine Respondent's compliance with applicable Medicaid Program requirements. In the course of the inspection, Ms. Selwitz and the other inspection team members reviewed Respondent's employee records and recipient files for compliance with applicable Medicaid program requirements. They contemporaneously documented their findings on checklists. While at the facility, Ms. Selwitz hand-delivered a demand letter with an attached provider questionnaire form and a Certification of Completeness form to Respondent. The letter stated in pertinent part: Pursuant to Section 409.913, Florida Statutes ("F.S."), this is official notice that the Agency requests that documentation for services paid by the Florida Medicaid program to the above provider number. The Medicaid-related records to substantiate billing for the recipients identified on the enclosed printout are due within fifteen (15) calendar days of our receipt of this notification. In addition, please complete the attached questionnaire and submit it along with the copies of the Medicaid- related records. Please submit the documentation and the attached Certification of Completeness of Records to the Agency within this timeframe.... Respondent signed a form acknowledging receipt of the demand letter. Respondent completed and signed the provider questionnaire and the Certification of Completeness form and submitted them, along with the requested records, to Petitioner. By signing the Certification of Completeness form, Respondent verified that the records it provided were true and correct copies of all requested information. Petitioner received the records and completed forms on October 4, 2011. After the inspection was completed, Ms. Selwitz reviewed the checklists prepared during the inspection and determined that the following was missing from Respondent's files: (1) Documentation showing current Zero Tolerance training missing from employee files of Respondent's employees L.Q., A.G., and A.H.; (2) Documentation showing receipt of a high school diploma missing from the file of L.Q.; (3) Documentation of an implementation plan in the consumer file for A.G.-A.; (4) Documentation of quarterly summaries in the consumer file for L.G.; and (5) Written policies and procedures addressing the staff training plan and specifying how pre- service and in-service activities will be carried out, including HIV/AIDS training, C.P.R. training, and all other training mandated pursuant to section 381.0035. On February 22, 2011, Petitioner sent Respondent a Sanction Letter specifically identifying these deficiencies, stating that the deficiencies constitute violations of federal and state Medicaid laws, and imposing a total fine of $7,000.00. Findings Regarding Alleged Violations Zero Tolerance Training Ms. Selwitz testified that the inspection of Respondent's facility revealed that documentation evidencing the receipt of current Zero Tolerance training was missing from the employee files for A.G., A.H., and L.Q. Her testimony was supported by the inspection checklist prepared at the time of the inspection, indicating that L.Q.'s and A.H.'s employee files did not contain documentation showing that they had received Zero Tolerance training, and that the A.G.'s Zero Tolerance training had expired.6/ At hearing, Respondent conceded that A.G.'s Zero Tolerance training had expired. With respect to A.H., at hearing Respondent provided a document purporting to be an unofficial transcript from Tallahassee Community College showing that Respondent had completed Zero Tolerance in 2010, so that her training was current. However, Respondent acknowledged that this documentation was not in A.H.'s employee file at the time of Petitioner's inspection. With respect to L.Q., Respondent claims that documentation showing her current Zero Tolerance training was, in fact, present in her employee file, and that Petitioner's inspection team overlooked the documentation. Respondent noted that Delmarva7/ had inspected the facility approximately 15 days before Petitioner's inspection, and claimed that Delmarva's report did not show Zero Tolerance documentation deficiencies for L.Q.'s file. Respondent argues that this shows that that the Zero Tolerance documentation was present in L.Q.'s file when Petitioner inspected the facility and Petitioner's inspection team simply overlooked it. In support, Respondent provided a document purported to be the Delmarva inspection report. The persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent violated the requirement to maintain documentation of current Zero Tolerance Training in the employee files of A.G., A.H., and L.Q. At hearing, Respondent conceded that A.G.'s Zero Tolerance training had expired and that A.H.'s employee file did not contain the required Zero Tolerance Training documentation at the time Petitioner conducted its inspection. Further, Ms. Selwitz credibly testified that L.Q.'s employee file did not contain the required Zero Tolerance training information, and her testimony was buttressed by the contemporaneously-prepared inspection checklists. Respondent did not provide persuasive evidence to the contrary.8/ Accordingly, it is determined that Respondent violate Medicaid laws, rules, regulations, and policies by failing to have Zero Tolerance training documentation in the employee files for A.G., A.H., and L.Q. Educational Level Documentation for L.Q. Ms. Selwitz testified that during the inspection, the team determined that documentation was missing from L.Q.'s employee file showing that she possessed the required level educational training——i.e., a high school diploma or equivalent9/——to serve as direct care staff providing residential rehabilitation services. Ms. Selwitz's testimony was supported by the inspection checklist, which expressly noted the lack of high school diploma or general educational development ("G.E.D.") in L.Q.'s file and that a copy of L.Q.'s application for employment with Respondent stated that she had not graduated from high school. At hearing, L.Q., a director and employee of Respondent, testified on behalf of Respondent, and Respondent offered for admission into evidence a document purported to be L.Q.'s application for employment with Respondent. The application stated that Respondent had graduated from high school. L.Q testified that this application was completed in 2006 when she started working with Respondent, but subsequently testified that she graduated from high school in 2008. Her testimony was inconsistent with, and undercut the veracity of, the document Respondent offered to show that L.Q. met the educational training level requirement. Furthermore, even if L.Q. satisfied the applicable educational training requirements, Respondent did not provide credible evidence to overcome Petitioner's showing that the required documentation showing that training was not in L.Q.'s file when Petitioner inspected Respondent's facility. Accordingly, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent violated Medicaid laws, rules, regulations, and policies by failing to have documentation of L.Q.'s educational status in her employee file. Inclusion of Implementation Plan in Consumer File Ms. Selwitz testified that the inspection also showed that a current Implementation Plan was not included in A.G.-A.'s consumer file, and her testimony was supported by the Residential Rehabilitation Services checklist that Petitioner's team completed at the time of the inspection. Respondent did not offer any testimony or other evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, Petitioner established that Respondent violated applicable Medicaid laws, rules, regulations, and policies by failing to have in its files a copy of the current Implementation Plan for consumer A.G.-A. Quarterly Summary Documentation in Consumer File Ms. Selwitz testified that Petitioner's inspection also revealed that Respondent failed to include a quarterly summary in L.G.'s consumer file documenting her progress, and this testimony was supported by the inspection checklists. At hearing, Respondent conceded this violation. Accordingly, Petitioner demonstrated that Respondent violated applicable Medicaid laws, rules, regulations, and policies by failing to have a quarterly summary in L.G.'s consumer file. Written Policies and Procedures Addressing Staff Training At hearing, Respondent conceded that at the time of the inspection, it failed to have written policies and procedures addressing the staff training plan and specifying how pre-service and in-service activities will be carried out, including HIV/AIDS training, C.P.R. training, and all other training mandated pursuant to section 381.0035. Accordingly, it is determined that Respondent violated applicable Medicaid laws, rules, regulations, and policies by failing to maintain this required documentation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order determining that Respondent violated federal and state Medicaid laws as charged in the February 22, 2012 Sanction Letter, and imposing a fine of $7,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 2012.
The Issue Whether Respondent should refuse to renew Petitioner's medical license on the ground that Petitioner has been terminated for cause from the Florida Medicaid program, as Respondent has indicated it intends to do.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a Florida-licensed medical doctor seeking the renewal of her license. She used to participate as a provider in the Florida Medicaid program. On May 12, 2003, the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) issued a Final Order in Audit No. CI 01- 1713-000, finding that Petitioner received Medicaid overpayments in the amount of $203,059.61, and ordering that she "refund forthwith [that sum] together with such statutory interest as is set forth in § 409.913(24)(b), Florida Statutes." On June 13, 2003, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that ACHA's May 8, 2003, Final Order, be set aside. AHCA denied the motion by Order dated November 18, 2003. Not having received from Petitioner the monies she was ordered to pay, AHCA sent Petitioner a letter, dated May 30, 2008, advising her that it intended to fine her $5,000.00 for having failed to pay her "outstanding debt that [was] owed to [ACHA], related to a Medicaid overpayment"; that "[i]f payment [was] not received or arranged for, within 30 days of receipt of this letter, [AHCA] [might] withhold Medicaid payment"; and that "failure to pay in full, or enter into and abide by the terms of any repayment schedule set forth by [AHCA] [might] result in additional sanctions, which [could] include, but [would] not [necessarily be] limited to, fines, suspension, and termination from the Medicaid Program." AHCA's May 30, 2008, letter also contained a Notice of Administrative Hearing and Mediation Rights. By letter dated August 13, 2008, AHCA advised Petitioner that it was "suspending [her] participation in the Medicaid program" due to her still having an "outstanding debt . . . owed to [AHCA]" and that "continued non-compliance [would] result in this suspension converting to termination from participation in the Medicaid program in accordance with Rule 59G-9.070, F.A.C." AHCA's August 13, 2008, letter also contained a Notice of Administrative Hearing and Mediation Rights. On June 11, 2009, Horace Dozier, the Field Office Manager in AHCA's Office of the Inspector General, Medicaid Program Integrity, sent Petitioner a letter, which read as follows: Our records indicate that on August 13, 2008 the Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency) issued a final agency action letter imposing a sanction for an outstanding debt that is owed to the Agency. The letter further informed you that, in accordance with Section 409.913, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Rule 59G-9.070, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), continued non- compliance would result in termination from the Medicaid program. As such, the Agency is hereby terminating your participation in the Medicaid program. This includes any action that results in a claim for payment to the Medicaid program as a result of furnishing, supervising a person who is furnishing, or causing a person to furnish goods or services. This will take effect immediately. You have the right to request a formal or informal hearing pursuant to Section 120.569, F.S. If a request for a formal hearing is made, the petition must be made in compliance with Section 28-106.201, F.A.C. and mediation may be available. If a request for an informal hearing is made, the petition must be made in compliance with rule Section 28-106.301, F.A.C. Additionally, you are hereby informed that if a request for a hearing is made, the petition must be received by the Agency within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of this letter. For more information regarding your hearing and mediation rights, please see the attached Notice of Administrative Hearing and Mediation Rights. Any questions you may have about this matter should be directed to: Horace Dozier, Field Office Manager, Agency for Health Care Administration, Medicaid Program Integrity . . . . The last paragraph of the "attached Notice of Administrative Hearing and Mediation Rights" to which Mr. Dozier referred in his letter read as follows: If a written request for an administrative hearing is not timely received you will have waived your right to have the intended action reviewed pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and the action set forth in the FAR [sic] shall be conclusive and final. Notwithstanding the assertion made in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the body of Mr. Dozier's June 11, 2009, letter that "[t]his will take effect immediately," the determination to terminate Petitioner from the Medicaid program for nonpayment of an "outstanding debt . . . owed to [AHCA]" was treated by AHCA (appropriately, and consistent with the last paragraph of the "attached Notice of Administrative Hearing and Mediation Rights") as merely "intended action" that had not yet ripened into final agency action. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing on this "intended action," but she subsequently, on or about November 12, 2009, withdrew her request by filing with ACHA a Withdrawal of Motion for Formal Hearing and Mediation. On February 16, 2010, ACHA (through its Secretary) issued its Final Order terminating Petitioner from the Florida Medicaid program. The body of AHCA's Final Order provided as follows: THIS CAUSE is before me for issuance of a Final Order on a Final Agency Action Letter dated June 11, 2009 (C.I. # 087796000). By . . . Letter, the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA" or "Agency") informed the Petitioner, Trinidad Rojas, M.D., (hereinafter "PROVIDER"), that the Agency was terminating the PROVIDER from the Medicaid Program pursuant to Section 409.913 and Rule 59G-9.070 for non-compliance of payment [of] an outstanding debt owed to the Agency for overpayments (Final Order Rendered May 12, 2003 and Final Order Rendered June 15, 2007) and a fine sanction of $5000.00.[2] The Letter provided full disclosure and notice to the PROVIDER of procedures for requesting an administrative hearing to contest termination. The PROVIDER filed a petition with the Agency requesting an administrative hearing on July 13, 2009. This petition was dismissed without prejudice on July 16, 2009. On August 1, 2009, PROVIDER filed an amended petition, which was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") by the Agency on August 12, 2009. On November 12, 2009, PROVIDER filed a Withdrawal of Motion for Formal Hearing and Mediation with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Based on Petitioner's Withdrawal of Motion for Formal Hearing and Mediation, the ALJ issued an Order Closing File, cancelled the hearing scheduled for November 17, 2009, and relinquished jurisdiction to the Agency on November 13, 2009.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued refusing to renew Petitioner's medical license. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2011, 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 31st day of May, 2011.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent was overpaid $312,773.67 for claims which, according to Petitioner, did not comply with Medicaid requirements.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is the state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program ("Medicaid"). At all relevant times, Respondent has been a Home and Community Based (HCB) Medicaid provider that is authorized to receive reimbursement for covered services rendered to Medicaid recipients. Developmental Disability Home and Community Based Services Waiver Program The alleged overpayment in this case relates to services Respondent provided through the Medicaid Developmental Disability Home and Community Based Waiver Program ("the Program"). As explained during Ms. Olmstead's final hearing testimony, the Program was established to help developmentally- disabled individuals remain in their homes or home-like settings within the community, as opposed to institutions such as nursing homes or intermediate care facilities. Medicaid recipients that desire to receive services through the Program undergo an initial evaluation performed by a waiver support coordinator. The support coordinator is a Medicaid provider that is selected by the Medicaid recipient or his or her guardian. To determine the services needed by the recipient to remain in the home, the support coordinator assesses the recipient by conducting an in-home visit. Upon completion of this initial assessment, the support coordinator formulates a "support plan," a document which describes the recipient's personality, likes, dislikes, strengths, and weaknesses, as well as the recipient's existing support system, such as family, friends, and neighbors. In addition, the support plan details the services the recipient needs to stay in the home and identifies who will provide the services. The expected costs of the proposed services are described on a form titled "cost plan," which, combined with the support plan, comprise the plan of care for the recipient. The support coordinator is required to submit the plan of care, as detailed in the support plan and cost plan, to the Department of Children and Families ("DCF"). If the plan of care is approved, DCF staff will create a "service authorization form." This form, which the support coordinator forwards to the service provider, describes the services to be rendered, as well as the duration and frequency of each service. Without the service authorization form, a provider cannot be assured payment from Medicaid. At least one time per year, the support coordinator must assess the recipient's needs, complete updated support and cost plans, and submit the updated plans for approval. If the updated plan of care is approved, DCF will draft a new service authorization form, which is forwarded to the provider by the support coordinator, along with copy of pertinent support plan information. Should the recipient's services or support require modification, the support coordinator is required to update the cost report and submit it for approval. Communication between the support coordinator and providers such as Respondent is encouraged, as the support coordinator reviews with the provider the goals to be achieved for the recipient. A service provider is expected to assist in establishing support plan outcomes for a recipient's goals and participate in the personal outcome process. Moreover, a service provider expressly consents to such communication by virtue of the provider's contract with Medicaid, which includes an agreement to participate in discussions with the support coordinator on matters such as a recipient's progress, the extent to which a recipient's needs are being met, and modifications to the recipient's support plan. The Preliminary Audit and Final Audit Exercising its statutory authority to oversee the integrity of Medicaid, Petitioner conducted a review or audit of Respondent's records to verify that claims paid by Medicaid during the period from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2004 (the "audit period"), were billed and paid in accordance with Medicaid statutes, rules, and policies. As the average number of claims per recipient during the audit period was substantial, Petitioner utilized "two stage cluster sampling." This first stage involved a random selection of 34 receipts for whom Respondent submitted claims during the audit period. Next, from those 34 recipients, a total of 255 claims was randomly selected. On October 7, 2005, AHCA requested that Respondent provide "the documentation for services paid by the Florida Medicaid Program" in connection with the 255 claims that comprised the random sample. On or about October 21, 2005, Respondent submitted 37 packages of documents in response to Petitioner's request. Respondent also executed an affidavit which alleged that the documents were true and correct copies, and that the records were made at or near the time that the services were rendered. The documents submitted by Respondent were initially examined by Ms. Effie Green, a program analyst employed by Petitioner. Ms. Green immediately noticed that the records from at least some of the packages were covered in dust with a crystal-like appearance. Law enforcement officers called to the scene ultimately determined that the substance was harmless. There is no evidence that any of the records were tampered with or removed from Petitioner's offices during the investigation. On the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that the documents remained in Ms. Green's office until the dust was analyzed. Following the events described above, the audit of Respondent's records was delayed for approximately one year while an appeal, which involved a different Medicaid provider, was completed. The appeal, which was resolved in AHCA's favor, concerned the validity of the statistical formula utilized in calculating probable Medicaid overpayments.4 The responsibility of reviewing the documents provided by Respondent was later transferred to Ms. Robin Satchell, an investigator employed by Petitioner in the Bureau of Program Integrity. Prior to her employment with AHCA, Ms. Satchell worked for eight years as an HCB Medicaid provider. Ms. Satchell fully reviewed the records previously submitted on October 20, 2005, and also examined additional records subsequently provided by Respondent to verify that the claims paid during the audit period were billed and paid in accordance with Medicaid statutes, rules, and policies. Rules applicable to the claims reviewed in this case are enumerated in the Florida Medicaid Developmental Services Waiver Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook, and include: Only those services that have been identified in a recipient's plan of care and which have been approved and authorized prior to delivery are covered. Providers are limited to the amount, duration, and scope of the services described on the recipient's support plan and current approved cost plan. Only those services that are medically necessary are covered. Services furnished through the developmental disability waiver program are deemed to be medically necessary only if certain elements are present, including but not limited to the following: the service is not in excess of the recipient's needs; and, the service is furnished in a manner not primarily intended for the convenience of the recipient, the recipient's caregiver, or the provider. In order to receive payment for services, the provider must document the service appropriately. Documentation is a written record that supports the fact that a service has been rendered. Depending upon the particular service provided (e.g., Personal Care Assistance, Homemaker Services, Chore Services), the documentation requirements may vary and are detailed in the Florida Medicaid Developmental Services Waiver Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook. On May 24, 2007, AHCA issued a Final Agency Audit Report, which alleged that Respondent was overpaid $1,647,960.81 during the audit period for services that were not covered by Medicaid. Following the issuance of the Final Agency Audit Report, and as announced at the outset of the final hearing in his matter, Petitioner now alleges that Respondent was overpaid $312,773.26. The manner in which AHCA reached the alleged overpayment of $312,773.67 is as follows: of the 255 claims examined by Ms. Satchell, 197 were allowed.5 Ms. Satchell made downward adjustments to 52 claims, and 6 were denied outright. Based upon the adjustments and denials, Ms. Satchell concluded that Respondent had received $1,287.26 in reimbursement of claims in the sample for services not covered by Medicaid, either in whole or in part. Having discovered this "empirical overpayment" of $1,287.26, AHCA employed a statistical formula to ascertain the "probable total overpayment" that Respondent received from Medicaid in connection with the total number of claims made during the Audit Period.6 As noted above, Petitioner contends that the "probable total overpayment" is $312,773.67. In her Proposed Recommended Order, Respondent asserts that with respect to the entire sample of claims, only one instance of incorrect billing occurred. In particular, Respondent concedes that that services provided to Recipient number 24 on September 2, 2003, were inadvertently overbilled in the amount of $0.96. Respondent disputes the remaining 51 downward adjustments and six outright denials, which are discussed separately below by recipient.7 Recipient No. 1 The support plan for this recipient authorized Personal Care Assistance, which is described in the Florida Medicaid Developmental Services Waiver Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook as follows: service that assists a beneficiary with eating and meal preparation, bathing, dressing, personal hygiene, and activities of daily living. The service also includes activities such as assistance with meal preparation, bed marking and vacuuming when these activities are essential to the health and welfare of the beneficiary and when no one else is available to perform them . . . . Personal Care Assistance is limited to the amount, duration and scope of the services described in the beneficiaries [sic] support plan and current approved cost plan.[8] (Emphasis added). The support plan indicates that this recipient lived with his mother and three siblings, all but one of whom were capable of completing homemaker tasks. AHCA alleges that of the five claims examined during the audit, one is problematic. In particular, AHCA contends that six of the activities performed on November 12, 2004, constituted unauthorized homemaker tasks, and therefore overbilling occurred in the amount of $12.90. According to AHCA, the unauthorized activities included organizing clothes, cleaning the kitchen, washing dishes, cleaning tables, cleaning the living room, and washing laundry. The undersigned finds that four of the six activities were unauthorized homemaker tasks: organizing clothes, cleaning the living room, washing laundry, and cleaning tables. The undersigned cannot agree, however, that Respondent inappropriately billed for washing dishes and cleaning the kitchen. Notably, and as demonstrated by the service log, meal preparation was one of the services provided to the recipient on November 12, 2004. There is no allegation that meal preparation was unauthorized, and the various exhibits submitted by AHCA plainly reveal that the service was appropriate (i.e., meal preparation was not included in AHCA's list of unauthorized activities for that date). In the undersigned's judgment, if a service provider is authorized to cook a meal for a beneficiary, it necessarily follows that the provider be permitted, and indeed expected, to wash the dishes and clean the kitchen. The undersigned's conclusion that Respondent appropriately billed for cleaning the kitchen and washing dishes is supported by the notes made by Ms. Satchell in one of AHCA's exhibits. In particular, page 3 of Petitioner's Exhibit H indicates that with respect to the October 17, 2004, services provided to Recipient No. 6 (who likewise received Personal Care Assistance), one unit of service was deducted for cleaning the kitchen because there was "no meal prep that day." The obvious implication of this notation is that cleaning the kitchen would not have been considered improper if a meal had been prepared. As Respondent was authorized to prepare a meal for the recipient on November 12, 2004, Respondent properly billed for the services of washing the dishes and cleaning the kitchen. Accordingly, the $12.90 alleged overpayment should be adjusted, as only four unauthorized activities (organizing clothes, cleaning the living room, washing laundry, and cleaning tables) were billed. Recipient No. 3 The service authorization for Recipient No. 3 provided for four hours of Homemaker Services per week. The service authorization further indicated that the Homemaker Services were intended to achieve the support plan goal of providing "the beneficiary with [a] clean environment. General household activities, such meal [sic] preparation, vacuuming, and routine cleaning." It appears from the support plan that the Homemaker Services were authorized due to the poor health of the recipient's mother. Homemaker Services are defined in the Florida Medicaid Developmental Services Waiver Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook as follows: Homemaker services are those general household activities such as meal preparation, laundry, vacuuming and routine household cleaning provided by a trained homemaker, when the person who usually handles these tasks is unable to perform them. The intent of this service is to ensure that the beneficiary's home environment remains clean, safe, and sanitary. Homemaker services are provided only when there is no one else capable of accomplishing the household tasks . . . . * * * Homemaker services shall be provided in the beneficiary's own home or family home. This service is available in the family home only when there is documentation as to why the family cannot provide the support If approved, homemaker services will be limited to the beneficiary's primary living areas such as bedroom and bathroom. This includes the kitchen and a common area, if regularly utilized by the beneficiary. (Emphasis added). On December 11, 2004, Respondent provided four hours of Homemaker Services, which were billed in the amount of $59.20. AHCA concedes that nine of the services provided on December 11, 2004, were authorized and therefore appropriately billed: making the bed; changing the bed sheets; throwing garbage away; cleaning the room; organizing the room; organizing the clothes; cleaning the bathroom; changing the towels; organizing the bathroom; vacuuming; cleaning the rugs; and meal preparation. However, AHCA contends that ten other activities provided on December 11, 2004, were unauthorized: cleaning the kitchen; washing the dishes; cleaning the tables; cleaning / organizing the cabinets; cleaning the stove; cleaning the refrigerator; cleaning the living room; washing laundry; ironing; and cleaning windows. It is evident from Ms. Satchell's notes (in the "MPI worksheet") that she found these tasks unnecessary because they occurred "outside of recipient's bedroom / bathroom."9 As a consequence, Ms. Satchell concluded that Respondent was overpaid for one hour of services in the amount of $14.80 Once again, the undersigned cannot agree that Respondent inappropriately billed for cleaning the kitchen, washing dishes, and cleaning the stove. Cooking was permitted by the service authorization, and there is no allegation that Respondent should not have billed for the meal that was prepared for the recipient on December 11, 2004. If a provider is authorized to prepare a meal, it is only logical that he or she clean up afterward and bill for the time. Nor can the undersigned agree that Respondent should not have billed for cleaning the living room, tables, windows, and refrigerator. These four activities plainly fall within the services contemplated by the service authorization, which directed Respondent to provide "the beneficiary with [a] clean environment" and carry out "general household activities . . . such as routine cleaning." Moreover, these activities are comparable to "cleaning rugs," an activity performed on the same date that was not alleged to be improper. Although, as AHCA point out, these activities may have occurred outside of the recipient's bedroom and bathroom, that fact is not controlling, as the Florida Medicaid Developmental Services Waiver Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook provides that Homemaker Services extend to "the kitchen and a common area, if regularly utilized by the beneficiary."10 The undersigned also finds that washing laundry was not an unauthorized activity, as it falls within the definition homemaker services. Further, in light of the recipient's incontinence, washing laundry is obviously essential to achieving the support plan goal of providing "the beneficiary with [a] clean environment." The undersigned does agree with AHCA that ironing and "cleaning / organizing cabinets" were unauthorized because these activities were not related to the support plan goals. Based on the findings herein that only two of the activities were unauthorized (ironing and "cleaning / organizing" cabinets), an adjustment should be made to the alleged overpayment of $14.80. Recipient No. 6 This recipient was authorized to receive six hours of Personal Care Assistance per day. Pursuant to the support plan, Respondent was authorized to provide bathing, dressing and eating assistance to the recipient. On October 17, 2004, Respondent provided six hours of services to the recipient, at a cost of $120.96. AHCA alleges, correctly, that one of the services provided on that date, cleaning the kitchen, was unauthorized because the service documentation provided by Respondent reflects that no meal was prepared. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Respondent was overpaid $5.04. Although Respondent has suggested that cleaning the kitchen may have been necessary due to the recipient (who is incontinent) defecating on the kitchen floor, no documentation has been provided that would support such a finding. In the absence of appropriate documentation, AHCA appropriately found that an adjustment of one unit was required for the October 17, 2004, services. Respondent also provided six hours of services to the recipient on November 26, 2004, at a cost of $120.96. With respect to this date, AHCA contends, and the undersigned agrees, that overbilling for one unit in the amount of $5.04 occurred, as one of the activities performed, "organizing clothes," constituted an unauthorized homemaker service. For the reasons expressed above, AHCA demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence overbilling totaling $10.08 with respect to this recipient. Recipient No. 7 This recipient was authorized to receive Personal Care Assistance. Significantly, the recipient's support plan clearly indicated that her mother prepared meals for her. The service logs indicate that Respondent provided four hours of services to the recipient on the following dates: September 4 and November 25, 2003, and February 10 and April 26, 2004. AHCA contends that on each of the four dates listed above, Respondent provided the unauthorized service of meal preparation, and as a result, Respondent was overpaid a total of $18.68. As the recipient's support plan clearly indicated that meals were prepared by a parent, AHCA has demonstrated an overpayment of $18.68 by a preponderance of the evidence. Recipient No. 8 Recipient No. 8 was authorized to receive Personal Care Assistance and Companion Services, both of which were provided by Respondent. AHCA alleges that of the eleven claims reviewed pursuant to the audit, two were problematic. Specifically, AHCA contends the service logs associated with the personal care assistance provided on October 26 and November 19, 2004, were obvious photocopies of Respondent's service log from March of 2004 for the same recipient. Accordingly, AHCA asserts that the records submitted by Respondent in connection with the October 26 and November 19 services were not contemporaneous and therefore inadequate. As no contemporaneous records document the services provided on October 26 and November 19, 2004, AHCA contends that Respondent was overpaid $275.20 ($137.60 for each of the dates). The undersigned has examined the service logs for October and November 2004 for this recipient and finds that they do not constitute contemporaneous records. As such, Respondent was overpaid in the amount alleged by AHCA. Recipient No. 9 This recipient was authorized to receive Homemaker Services. AHCA alleges, and the undersigned agrees, that of the five claims audited, two involved overpayments. In particular, Respondent's service log reveals that on April 29, 2003, the unauthorized activity of "shopping" was performed. As such, Respondent was overpaid in the amount of $3.70. Further, Respondent's service log indicates that on January 7, 2004, homemaker activities were provided from 9:00 a.m. through 11:00 a.m., which included shopping and meal preparation. As noted above, shopping is an unauthorized activity. In addition, the support plan indicates that the recipient's mother was responsible for preparing meals. Accordingly, an overpayment of $3.70 occurred with respect to this date of service. For these reasons, AHCA has demonstrated a total overpayment of $7.40 in connection with this recipient. Recipient No. 10 Recipient No. 10 was authorized to receive Companion Services, which, pursuant to the support plan, were intended to help the recipient "continue to be exposed to different options in the community." AHCA contends that two of the five claims examined during the audit are problematic. First, with respect to the July 29, 2003, claim, Respondent provided no documentation to support the $49.44 billed for the four hours of service. As such, AHCA correctly determined that Respondent was overpaid in that amount. In addition, AHCA properly found that Respondent was overpaid $3.70 in connection with the September 26, 2003, services. Specifically, the service log indicates that a meal was prepared, which is an activity unrelated to the specific goals identified in the support plan. Based on the above findings, Respondent was overpaid a total of $53.14 with respect to this recipient. Recipient No. 12 Recipient No. 12 was authorized to receive eight hours of Companion Services per week. Pursuant to the support plan and service authorization, the services were intended to help the recipient be "socially active in the community." The support plan further indicated that the recipient was able to "clean her room, clean the bathroom . . . wash dishes and help her mother with chores." AHCA correctly alleges that of the five claims examined, three involved overpayments. First, for the 32 units of service provided on December 28, 2003, Respondent was overpaid $3.70 because the service log indicates that dishwashing was provided. This was obviously inappropriate because, as noted above, the support plan expressly provided that the recipient was capable of washing dishes. Next, Respondent's service log indicates that dishwashing was performed for the recipient on April 24, 2004. As such, Respondent was overpaid $3.70. An overpayment of $3.70 was also proven in connection with the July 3, 2004, services, as the service log demonstrates that the unauthorized activities of dishwashing and "organizing the bathroom" were performed. For these reasons, AHCA appropriately determined that Respondent was overpaid in the total amount of $11.10 for the services provided to this recipient during the audit period. Recipient No. 17 This recipient was authorized to receive Personal Care Assistance and Homemaker Services. Of the twelve claims reviewed concerning this recipient, AHCA alleges that only the November 11, 2004, services are problematic. In particular, a review of the service logs demonstrates that seven activities billed as homemaker services for November 11, 2004, were also provided and billed as personal care assistance for the same date. Based upon this unauthorized duplication of services, AHCA has proven that an overpayment of $14.80 occurred. Recipient No. 18 This recipient was authorized to receive forty hours of Personal Care Assistance per week. According to the support plan, the recipient lived alone with her father (who worked full time) and had little contact with her mother, who lived "far away" and visited only occasionally on weekends. The support plan further provided that the personal care assistance was intended to provide assistance with "bathing, dressing, grooming, food preparation, feeding, and transportation to . . . therapy." AHCA determined, following a review of the service logs and other documentation, that Respondent was overpaid in connection with two of the seven claims reviewed during the audit. First, AHCA alleges that Respondent was overpaid $7.72 by performing unauthorized homemaker tasks on September 19, 2003, which included shopping, washing dishes (although no meal was prepared), and assisting with household activities that would not typically be completed by an eight-year-old child. The undersigned agrees that the activities identified by AHCA in connection with the services rendered on September 19, 2003, were unauthorized, and that Respondent was overpaid in the amount of $7.72. AHCA also contends that Respondent was overpaid $7.72 in connection with the services provided on February 27, 2004. Specifically, AHCA asserts that three of the activities (shopping, laundry, and washing dishes) were unauthorized homemaker tasks. It is critical to note that in contrast to the services provided on September 19, 2003, the provider prepared a meal (as authorized by the support plan) for the recipient on February 27, 2004. As such, and for the reasons expressed previously in this Recommended Order, dishwashing should not be deemed an unauthorized activity. However, the undersigned concludes that shopping and laundry, the other two questionable activities performed on February 27, 2004, were indeed unauthorized. In light of the undersigned's finding that meal preparation was not an unauthorized activity, AHCA should make an appropriate adjustment to the February 27, 2004, overpayment. Recipient No. 19 Of the eight claims examined for Recipient No. 19, who was authorized to receive Companion Services, AHCA found fault with only one. In particular, AHCA determined that of the $59.20 billed on November 26, 2004, Respondent was overpaid $3.70 by performing the unauthorized homemaker activity of "organizing bathroom." The undersigned agrees with AHCA's finding, as organizing the recipient's bathroom is a homemaker activity that does not fall within the ambit of companion services. As such, an overpayment of $3.70 occurred. Recipient No. 20 This recipient was authorized to receive twenty hours of Companion Services per week, which were typically provided in four hour blocks from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Companion Services are defined in the Florida Medicaid Developmental Services Waiver Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook as follows: Companion services consist of non-medical care, supervision, and socialization activities provided to an adult on a one-on- one basis. This service must be provided in direct relation to the achievement of the beneficiary's goals per his or her support plan. A companion provider may also assist the beneficiary with such tasks as meal preparation, laundry and shopping . . . . Providers may also perform light housekeeping tasks, incidental to the care and supervision of the beneficiary. (Emphasis added). Significantly, the support plan expressly provided that the recipient "receive[d] assistance from her companion in some house chores, like cleaning the kitchen and meal preparation to avoid risky situations in the kitchen." (Emphasis added). AHCA contends that overpayments occurred with respect to four of the five claims audited. First, AHCA alleges that with regard to the November 11, 2003, services, Respondent was overpaid $3.70 by performing the unauthorized activity of "light housekeeping." The undersigned cannot agree, as the support plan plainly allowed the provider to assist the recipient with "some house chores," which is indistinguishable from "light housekeeping." Further, and as noted above, companion services may include "light housekeeping tasks, incidental to the care and supervision of the beneficiary." The service log for November 11, 2003, demonstrates that supervision was provided to the recipient. Accordingly, Respondent did not overbill in the amount of $3.70 for this date of service. Next, AHCA contends that with respect to the services provided on December 10, 2003 (which included non-medical care, supervision, shopping, and "goals and support plan assistant"), one activity was unauthorized: meal preparation. As such, AHCA alleges that an overpayment of $3.70 occurred. The undersigned concludes, based on the unambiguous language of the support plan, that meal preparation was authorized. As detailed above, the recipient "receive[d] assistance from her companion in some house chores, like cleaning the kitchen and meal preparation to avoid risky situations in the kitchen." (Emphasis added). Accordingly, an overpayment of $3.70 did not occur with respect to the December 10, 2003, services. Turning to the services provided on May 6, 2004, AHCA contends that the unauthorized activity of washing laundry resulted in an overbilling of $3.70. As referenced in the definition of companion services previously quoted, laundry may only be performed "in direct relation to the achievement of the beneficiary's goals per his or her support plan." In this instance, the documentation submitted by Respondent fails to make such a showing. As a result, AHCA correctly found that $3.70 was overbilled for this date. Finally, with respect to the May 12, 2004, services, AHCA alleges that Respondent was overpaid $3.70 for the unauthorized activity of "dishwashing." The undersigned does not agree that dishwashing was unauthorized, since the support plan contemplated that the recipient would receive assistance from a "companion in some house chores, like cleaning the kitchen." As washing dishes is integral to the process of cleaning a kitchen, Respondent was not overpaid in connection with this date of service. Based on the above findings, the total overbilling for this recipient was $3.70, which related to the May 6, 2004, services. Respondent was not overpaid in connection with the services provided on November 11 and December 10, 2003, and May 12, 2004. Recipient No. 21 This recipient was authorized to receive 20 hours of Personal Care Assistance per week, which was typically provided from 2:00 p.m. through 6:00 p.m. The support plan for this recipient, who is incontinent, reads in relevant part as follows: Food requires modification. Food needs to be blend [sic] or puree [sic] at all times to avoid choking . . . . [Recipient] arrives home around 2:00 p.m. Personal Care service changes her diaper. Then she prepares her a snack. She is [sic] assists with eating. AHCA contends that Respondent was overpaid in connection with three of the four dates of service examined during the audit. First, with respect to the services provided on April 14, 2004, AHCA asserts that two unauthorized activities were performed (organizing clothes and performing a massage), which resulted in overbilling of $3.86. Having reviewed the support plan carefully, the undersigned agrees that these activities were unauthorized and that an overpayment occurred in the amount alleged. Turning to the services provided on October 14, 2004, AHCA alleges that five unauthorized activities (providing a massage, washing dishes, changing sheets, organizing the bathroom, and cleaning a table) resulted in overbilling of $11.58. The undersigned concurs with AHCA's assertion that the activities of "massage," change sheets, organize bathroom, and clean table were unauthorized. However, overbilling did not occur for washing dishes, as the service log reveals that a meal was prepared for the recipient on October 14, 2004, an activity that was expressly authorized by the support plan. As meal preparation was permitted, washing the dishes constituted a permissible activity. In light of the above findings, AHCA should make an appropriate adjustment to the overpayment associated with the October 14, 2004, services. Finally, AHCA contends that with regard to the December 24, 2004, services, Respondent was overpaid $7.72 by providing four unauthorized activities: performing a massage, making the bed, changing towels, and cleaning the living room. The undersigned agrees that these activities were not approved and that an overpayment occurred in the amount alleged. Recipient No. 23 Recipient No. 23 was authorized to receive Personal Care Assistance, which was typically provided multiple times each week for eight hours. AHCA contends that Respondent was overpaid in connection with eight of the nine claims examined during the audit. Six of the claims involve identical issues. In particular, with respect to the services provided on August 29, 2003, and February 2, February 17, April 5, May 28, and September 13, 2004, AHCA asserts that the unauthorized activities of "make bed, meal prep, [and] clean table" resulted in overbilling totaling $60.48 (i.e., $10.08 for each of the six dates). As it appears from a review of the support plan that the recipient's mother was able to complete these activities, the undersigned agrees that overbilling occurred in the amount alleged. AHCA also alleges, and has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence, that $10.08 was overbilled in connection with the services provided on August 8, 2003. In particular, the activities of "played outside, played with castle set, and lunch" are beyond the scope of the services contemplated by the support plan. Finally, AHCA has met its burden with respect to the alleged $5.04 in overbilling associated with the September 10, 2003, services, as "went to pool" and "watered deck flowers before dinner" plainly constitute unauthorized activities. Recipient No. 24 As noted previously, Respondent concedes that an overpayment of $0.96 occurred with respect to this recipient. Recipient No. 25 Recipient No. 25 was authorized to receive 16 hours of Companion Services each week to assist with socialization and supervision. Of the six claims examined during the audit, AHCA contends that two are problematic. First, with regard to the services provided on January 29, 2003, AHCA contends that the entire billing for that date ($24.72) should be denied due to inadequate documentation. In particular, AHCA notes that the service log provided during the preliminary audit and final audit was different than a log submitted by Respondent in April of 2009. Further, the earlier log is vague (it merely indicates "assist household, escort activities, other") and fails to address any specific support plan activities. AHCA also points out that the later log was incomplete and failed to indicate the date of the activities. AHCA has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the services provided on January 29, 2003, were not adequately documented, and therefore Respondent was overpaid in the amount of $24.72. Next, AHCA alleges that the services provided on March 25, 2004, were not adequately documented, and therefore the entire billing of $44.40 should be denied for that date. Specifically, AHCA points out that the service log only reads "supervision" and "escort activities" and failed to address any of the activities enumerated in the support plan. Although a later service log was submitted, it was incomplete, vague, and failed to delineate which activities were performed on March 25, 2004, as opposed to the other nine dates of service during that month. For the reasons detailed above, AHCA demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the March 25, 2004, services were not properly documented, and therefore the $44.40 payment should be denied. Recipient No. 26 AHCA contends that of the nine claims examined during the audit concerning this recipient, one should be fully denied due to the lack of proper documentation. Specifically, AHCA alleges that the $74.00 payment for the services rendered on May 31, 2004, should be denied outright, as the service log for May of 2004 was created by photocopying the service log for the previous month and changing the date. The undersigned has examined the documents11 and concludes that the May 2004 service log was not contemporaneously prepared. As a result, AHCA has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the $74.00 payment associated with the May 31, 2004, services should be denied. Recipient No. 28 This recipient was authorized to receive Personal Care Assistance to address daily needs such as grooming and dressing. Significantly, the support plan also indicates that meal preparation was authorized. AHCA contends that with respect to the services provided on May 15, 2003, four unauthorized homemaker activities were performed: cleaning the bathroom, washing laundry, cleaning the kitchen, and washing dishes. As a result, AHCA alleges an overpayment of $12.00, which represents four units of service. AHCA has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that cleaning the bathroom and washing laundry were unauthorized. However, AHCA has failed to prove that dishwashing and cleaning the kitchen were unauthorized, as the provider prepared a meal (as indicated by the service log) for the recipient on May 15, 2003, an activity that was authorized by the support plan. As explained previously in this Recommended Order, if a provider is authorized to prepare a meal, then it is entirely reasonable for the provider to wash the dishes and clean the kitchen afterward. This is particularly true with respect to this recipient, who lived alone with her stepfather (who, according to the support plan, worked "intensive hours"), and was incapable of performing basic tasks (e.g., grooming and dressing) without assistance. Accordingly, AHCA should make an appropriate adjustment to the alleged $12.00 overpayment based on the above findings that cleaning the kitchen and washing dishes were not unauthorized. Recipient No. 29 Recipient No. 29 was authorized to receive Personal Care Assistance in the amount of two hours each weekday and five hours on weekends. Pursuant to the support plan, the recipient required assistance with basic activities such as dressing, bathing, brushing teeth, and preparing meals. AHCA contends that overbilling occurred with respect to four of the eight dates of service examined during the audit. First, AHCA alleges, and has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that $10.08 was overbilled for the October 6, 2004, services, as the following unauthorized homemaker activities were performed: cleaning the recipient's room, cleaning the bathroom, organizing the room, organizing the bathroom, and changing towels. In addition, AHCA has proven an overpayment of $10.08 in connection with the November 24, 2004, services, where the service log demonstrates that unauthorized homemaker activities (identical to the services identified in the previous paragraph) were performed on that date. With regard to the services rendered on December 14, 2004, AHCA has demonstrated overbilling of $10.08 for the unauthorized homemaker services of cleaning the room and changing towels. Finally, AHCA alleges, and has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence, a $5.04 overpayment in connection with the December 29, 2004, services. In particular, the service logs demonstrate that the unauthorized homemaker activities of vacuuming, organizing the bathroom, and taking out garbage were performed. Recipient No. 31 This recipient was authorized to receive Personal Care Assistance, which was provided eight hours per day, Monday through Friday, and ten hours on both Saturday and Sunday. As the recipient is a quadriplegic, personal care assistance was obviously necessary for feeding and maintaining personal hygiene. Of the nine claims examined during the audit concerning this recipient, AHCA alleges that overbilling occurred with respect to two. First, with regard to the October 27, 2003, services, AHCA contends that insufficient documentation was provided by Respondent to support ten hours of billing. In particular, AHCA asserts that "ate well" is the only activity described in the contemporaneous service log.12 As a result, AHCA argues that one hour of billing should be permitted for meal prep, and that the remaining billing in the amount of $181.44 should be disallowed. Contrary to AHCA's contention, "ate well" is not the only event described in the contemporaneous service log. Significantly, the log also reads, "Incontinent B & B." Given the recipient's physical condition, this notation obviously means that the service provider was required to address at least one episode of bladder and bowel incontinence during the ten hours of service. As such, billing should be permitted for toileting. Based on the above finding that services were documented for toileting, AHCA should make an appropriate adjustment to the October 27, 2003, overpayment. Next, AHCA contends that that due to inadequate documentation, overbilling of $161.28 occurred with regard to the ten hours of services provided on February 16, 2004. In particular, AHCA contends that the documentation submitted by Respondent supports only two hours of billing, as bathing was the only activity described in the contemporaneous service log. Once again, however, the contemporaneous service log also indicates that the service provider was required to address the recipient's bladder and bowel incontinence. Accordingly, additional billing should be permitted for toileting, and AHCA should make an appropriate adjustment to the February 16, 2004, overpayment. Recipient No. 32 Recipient No. 32 was authorized to receive Personal Care Assistance and Companion Services. AHCA contends that Respondent was overpaid in connection with eight of the fifteen claims examined pursuant to the audit. With respect to the services provided on March 21 and 23, 2003, AHCA has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent was overpaid $61.80 in connection with each of the two dates (totaling $123.60) where the documentation does not support the units of service billed. Next, AHCA contends, and the undersigned agrees, that Respondent inappropriately billed for recreational activities in connection with the personal care assistance services provided on August 13, 2003, and December 1, 2003. As a result, $3.86 was overbilled for each date, for a total of $7.72. AHCA also alleges, and has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence, that unauthorized homemaker activities were billed in connection with the companion services rendered on October 7 and 11, 2003, and December 2, 2003, which resulted in overbilling of $11.10, $11.10, and $7.40, respectively. In particular, the service logs indicate that meal prep, laundry, and housekeeping were performed on October 7 and 11, 2003, and that laundry and housekeeping were provided on December 2, 2003. Finally, AHCA has proven an overpayment of $15.44 with respect to the personal care assistance services provided on March 25, 2004. Specifically, the service log indicates that the service provider "walked the dog" and "checked live bait," tasks which do not fall within the scope of personal care assistance. Based on the above findings, AHCA demonstrated a total overpayment of $176.36 with respect to this recipient. Recipient No. 33 This recipient was authorized to receive three hours per week of Companion Services, which were intended to "increase awareness of community resources and increase community integration skills." AHCA alleges that Respondent was overpaid in connection with one of the two claims examined during the audit. Specifically, with respect to the services provided on July 15, 2003, the only activities described in the service log are "shopping" and "exercise." AHCA contends, and the undersigned agrees, that neither shopping nor exercise constitute goal oriented activities in under the circumstances of this recipient. Accordingly, AHCA has demonstrated an overpayment of $15.44, which represents one hour of billing. Recipient No. 34 This recipient was authorized to receive Personal Care Assistance. Pursuant to the support plan, the recipient lived with her able-bodied mother and older brother. Of the five claims examined during the audit, AHCA contends that Respondent was overpaid with respect to two. First, AHCA alleges that $5.29 was overpaid in connection with the August 4, 2004, services, where the service log suggested that the provider took the recipient to the park. The undersigned has examined the monthly summary, and agrees with AHCA's assessment of the documentation. Accordingly, AHCA has demonstrated an overpayment in the amount alleged. Turning to the services provided on December 9, 2004, AHCA has demonstrated an overpayment of $5.29 by a preponderance of the evidence, as "cleaning the living room" is an activity that could have been performed by the recipient's mother.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that AHCA: Make appropriate adjustments to the empirical overpayment; Recalculate the probable total overpayment using the adjusted empirical overpayment and the statistical formula previously employed, and enter a final order requiring Respondent to repay AHCA the amount determined through such recalculation; The final order should further require Respondent to pay interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum on the recalculated total overpayment. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer 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 23rd day of November, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary' evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: DHRS administers the Program which is jointly funded by the state and federal government under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. The Program is voluntary and is subject to both state and federal laws, rules and regulations. The Program does not reimburse providers such as Dr. Clement for all services rendered. Only those services which are determined to be medically necessary or which the state has determined it wishes to provide are covered by the Program. The services to be rendered and the fees to be paid for those services are set forth in the policy manuals and fee schedules which are given the provider when he enrolls in the Program. Under the Program, the provider files claims in accordance with the policies set forth in the manual. Those claims are computer processed and it is assumed that the provider is submitting the claims in accordance with the policies. The computer system is not programmed to reject all erroneous claims. Therefore, the provider is automatically reimbursed based upon claims submitted. The Program operates on the honor system and must "pay and chase" providers who submit improper claims. Under the Program the state is required to protect the integrity of the Program by reviewing providers for possible fraud and abuse. The Program utilizes a Surveillance Utilization and Review System (SURS) which compares a provider's Medicaid practice with that of his peers. This system takes the provider's computer generated claims history and compares it both quantitatively and qualitatively with the average practice of his peers. When a potential problem is detected, the provider's practice is further reviewed to determine if fraud or abuse has occurred. On November 4, 1983, Dr. Clement signed a provider agreement with DHRS and operated under this provider agreement at all times material to this proceeding. In signing this provider agreement, Dr. Clement agreed to "submit requests for payment in accordance with program policies" and to, "abide by the provisions of the Florida Statutes, policies, procedures, manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program and Federal laws and regulations. In billing under the Program, Dr. Clement is expected to provide services in accordance with generally accepted practices of his profession of dentistry. Those services for which a provider may submit claims are set forth in the Children's Dental Services Manual (HRSM 230-22), a copy of which was provided to Dr. Clement when he entered the Program. In addition to the manual, Dr. Clement was provided with an EDS Billing Handbook which explained the mechanics of submitting a claim. HRSM 230-22 is merely a compilation of procedures for which the Program will reimburse the provider along with the reimbursement rate for each procedure. The manual utilizes procedures and codes utilized by the American Dental Association, is prepared with technical assistance of dental consultants, and is reviewed by various dental associations. The manual is designed for use by dental providers who are knowledgeable in the field of dentistry and are utilizing generally accepted principles of dentistry. In 1985 a SURS Level I Review report, comparing Dr. Clement with his peer group of general dentists providing services to children, indicated possible inappropriate billing of the Program. Because of the nature and extent of the billing problems, Dr. Clement's case was referred to the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) of the State of Florida's Auditor General's Office for possible criminal prosecution. DHRS took no further action pending the criminal investigation. Criminal charges were subsequently filed against Dr. Clement as a result of the MFCU investigation and Dr. Clement's case was referred back to the Medicaid Office of Program Integrity for review of nine possible areas of program policy violations which were not part of the criminal prosecution. The Program thereupon conducted its own investigation into possible abuse by Dr. Clement. Using the preliminary investigation done by an HRS dental consultant who reviewed Dr. Clement's practice for MFCU, and the original Level I Review report, a DHRS investigator reviewed ad hoc computer reports of claims submitted by Dr. Clement for specific dental procedures. Based upon the computer analysis of claims submitted, as well as the advice of the dental consultant, the Program identified nine areas of Dr. Clement's practice of Medicaid billing which were not in compliance with Medicaid billing procedures or generally accepted standards of dental practice. On sixty-six occasions, Dr. Clement submitted claims and was paid for procedures such as examinations, prophylaxis and fluoride treatment at intervals of less than six months. HRSM 230-22 recommends that such procedures be performed no more frequently than once every six months, and this recommendation is recognized under generally accepted standards of dentistry. This recommendation is applicable to both private pay patients and Medicaid patients who are generally indigent. Although such treatment may be necessary on occasions at shorter intervals, Dr. Clement offered no evidence to justify the frequency or the necessity of providing such procedures at intervals of less than the recommended six months. On two hundred and eighty six occasions, Dr. Clement improperly filed claims and received payment for consultations. HRSM 230-22 only allows claims for consultations by a dental specialist (oral surgeon, periodontist, endodontist, or prosthodontist). Dr. Clement is not a dental specialist and should not have submitted claims for such procedures. The manual's definition and interpretation of the appropriate billing procedure for consultation services is in accordance with the generally accepted practice of dentistry. On ninety four occasions, Dr. Clement submitted claims and received payment for behavior management and nitrous oxide on the same visit. HRSM 230- 22 only allows claims for behavior management where nitrous oxide is not used. There was no evidence to show that both behavior management and nitrous oxide on the same visit was necessary. On seven occasions, Dr. Clement submitted claims and received payment for extracting more than one first tooth in a given quadrant. HRSM 230-22 provides a fee of $10.00 for the extraction of the first tooth in a given quadrant which is billed on a claim as procedure D7110 whereas each additional tooth extracted in the same quadrant at the same time is reimbursed at the rate of $7.00 and billed on a claim as procedure D7120. The fee for the removal of the first tooth in a given quadrant is higher than the fee for each succeeding tooth in the same quadrant because anesthesia for the first tooth does not have be administered for each succeeding tooth in the same quadrant. Dr. Clement received payment for 117 alveolectomies (a reshaping of the bone) performed on 52 children which is an excessive number. Alveolectomies should only be performed in extreme cases where, without an alveolectomy, the insertion of dentures or partials would be impossible. It is standard dental practice to perform an alveolectomy only where a denture is supplied. Performing an alveolectomy on a child is not a common practice. There was no evidence that Dr. Clement performed the alveolectomies in preparation of insertion of partials or dentures. Dr. Clement filed an excessive number of claims for pulp caps. A pulp cap is a protective material utilized when the pulp of the tooth is exposed (direct pulp cap) or nearly exposed (indirect pulp cap). HRSM 230-22 differentiates a pulp cap from a medicated base. A pulp cap is reimbursable as a separate claim, the medicated base is not. Dr. Clement claimed and received payment for pulp caps 68.7 percent of the time in conjunction with a tooth restoration. There was credible evidence to show that in the generally accepted practice of dentistry, pulp caps are used no more than 5 percent of the time in a tooth restoration. Dr. Clement billed for pulp caps whenever he applied a medicated base, even though the pulp was not exposed or nearly exposed. On one hundred occasions Dr. Clement improperly filed claims and received payment for palliative (emergency) treatment at the same time that he filed a claim and was paid for regular dental treatment. Palliative treatment is used to relieve pain and discomfort on an emergency basis when time and circumstances contra-indicate a more definitive treatment and additional services. In the general accepted practice of dentistry, palliative treatment is used as a temporary measure to assist the patient until such time as regular treatment can be provided. Palliative treatment and any other treatment are mutually exclusive and normally would not be given on the same day. On those occasion where Dr. Clement filed claims and received payment for both palliative treatment and regular treatment on the same day, there is insufficient evidence to show that this treatment was within the generally accepted practice of dentistry. On sixteen occasions Dr. clement improperly filed claims and was paid for prophylaxis, periodontal scaling, and gingival curettage all on the same date of service. Prophylaxis is the standard cleaning of the teeth. Periodontal scaling is a more advanced procedure of cleaning wherein larger deposits of caclculus are removed by scraping. Gingival curretage is a more drastic procedures wherein pockets which have formed between the gum and the teeth are scraped out. While all three procedures are different, they overlap somewhat and it is not a generally accepted practice of dentistry to perform more than one of these procedures at any given time. There was no evidence presented to show that performing all three procedures on the same date was necessary or was within the generally accepted practice of dentistry. Dr. Clement filed an excessive number of claims for gingival curretage. Dr. Clement claimed and received payment for gingival curretage on 14 percent of his patients under the age of 17. In the generally accepted practice of dentistry, the use of gingival curretage on children will not normally exceed 1 percent to 3 percent for ages 10 and under or 3 percent to 6 percent over the age of 10. Although Dr. Clement urged that these claims for gingival curretage had been given prior approval, the evidence showed that the prior approval had been given based on information furnished by Dr. Clement and the dental consultant giving the prior approval did so on that information on a case by case basis and did not know of the excessive use of gingival curretage by Dr. Clement. Based on the nine areas cited for inappropriate billing, there is substantial competent evidence to show that Dr. Clement was not following generally accepted standards of dental practice.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order finding that Dr. Clement has abused the Florida Medicaid Program and terminating Dr. Clement from participation in the Florida Medicaid Program. Respectfully submitted and entered this 7th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3023 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 as clarified. 21. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 but clarified. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 9 The first sentence adopted in Finding of Fact 19. The balance is rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore E. Mack, Esquire 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Harold E. Regan, Esquire 308 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Conclusions 1. The STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (“AHCA”), was notified by Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services that the Medicare billing number for the above-referenced provider was revoked April 28, 2010. 2. In accordance with Section 409.913(14) if a provider has been suspended or terminated from participation in the Medicaid program or the Medicare program by the Federal Government or any other state, the agency must immediately suspend or terminate, as appropriate, the provider’s participation in the Florida Medicaid program for a period of no less than that imposed by the Federal Government or any other state, and may not enroll such provider in the Florida Medicaid program while such foreign suspension or termination remains in effect. 3. On April 13, 2012, AHCA issued a letter to Respondent, terminating the Respondent’s participation in the Medicaid program. See ATTACHMENT A. AHCA v. C.A.D.C. Corp., d/b/a Miracle Rehab Center (C.1. No: 12-2049-000) Final Order — Page 1 of 4 Filed September 25, 2012 3:12 PM Division of Administrative Hearings A & 33 4. On May 14, 2012, C.A.D.C. CORP., d/b/a MIRACLE REHAB CENTER, (“Respondent”), filed The Request for a Formal Hearing concerning Miracle Rehab Center, with the Division of Administrative Hearings. See ATTACHMENT B. 5. On June 18, 2012, Respondent received a favorable CMS revocation appeal decision. As such, the underlying cause of action which precipitated Florida Medicaid to terminate Respondent is moot, or the revocation was overturned on appeal. See ATTACHMENT C. 6. On July 12, 2012, AHCA issued a letter to Respondent, rescinding the sanctions in the above-styled matter. See ATTACHMENT D. 7. Based on the foregoing, this file is hereby CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED on this ao* day of opheol , 2012, in Tallahassee, Florida. ; lizabeth ee Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration AHCA v. C.A.D.C. Corp., d/b/a Miracle Rehab Center (C.1. No: 12-2049-000) Final Order — Page 2 of 4 A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Christopher A. Parelia, Qualified Representative The Health Law Offices of Anthony C. Vitale, P.A. 2333 Brickell Avenue Suite A-1] Miami, Florida, 33129 Telephone: (305) 358-4500 Facsimile: (305) 358-5113 Email: CParrella@vitalehealthlaw.com (Via Facsimile and Email) Tracie L. Hardin, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Agency for Health Care Administration Bureau of Finance and Accounting 2727 Mahan Drive Building 2, Mail Station 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Bureau of Health Quality Assurance 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 9 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Mike Blackburn, Bureau Chief Medicaid Program Integrity 2727 Mahan Drive Building 2, Mail Station 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (interoffice Mail) Eric W. Miller, Inspector General Medicaid Program Integrity 2727 Mahan Drive Building 2, Mail Station 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (Via U.S. Mail) Florida Department of Health Medical License #299992712 (Via Email Only) AHCA v. C.A.D.C. Corp., d/b/a Miracle Rehab Center (C.1. No: 12-2049-000) Final Order — Page 3 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to the above named addressees by facsimile and email, or the method designated, on this the Richard Shoop, Esquire Agency Clerk State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 412-3630 AHCA vy. C.A.D.C. Corp., d/b/a Miracle Rehab Center (C.1, No: 12-2049-000) Final Order — Page 4 of 4
The Issue Whether the last sentence of Rule 64B17-3.003, Florida Administrative Code, which provides that "[a]n applicant who has failed to pass the [physical therapist licensure] examination after five attempts, regardless of the jurisdiction through which the examination was taken, is precluded from licensure [by endorsement]," is an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority," within the meaning of Section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the factual stipulations entered into by the parties:3 The "applications for licensure in Florida as physical therapists" that Petitioners filed were applications for licensure by endorsement.4 Their applications were denied because they each had failed the National Physical Therapy Examination (also known as the "NPTE") more than five times before finally passing the examination. Prior to November 11, 2002, the Board's "Licensure by Endorsement" rule, Rule 64B17-3.003, Florida Administrative Code, provided as follows: An applicant demonstrating that he or she meets the requirements of Rule 64B17-3.001, F.A.C., may be licensed to practice physical therapy by endorsement by presenting evidence satisfactory to the Board that the applicant has passed an examination before a similar, lawful, authorized examining board in physical therapy in another state, the District of Columbia, a territory or a foreign country if their [sic] standards for licensure are as high as those maintained in Florida. The standard for determining whether the standards of another state, the District of Columbia, a territory, or a foreign country are as high as the standards in Florida shall be whether the written examination taken for licensure in such other jurisdiction by applicants meeting Florida's minimum educational qualifications was through the national physical therapy examination provider. Effective November 11, 2002, the Board amended Rule 64B17-3.003, Florida Administrative Code, to read as follows: An applicant demonstrating that he or she meets the requirements of Rule 64B17-3.001, F.A.C., may be licensed to practice physical therapy by endorsement by presenting evidence satisfactory to the Board that the applicant has active licensure in another jurisdiction and has passed an examination before a similar, lawful, authorized examining board in physical therapy in such other jurisdiction if their [sic] standards for licensure are as high as those maintained in Florida. The standard for determining whether the standards of another jurisdiction are as high as the standards in Florida shall be whether the written examination taken for licensure in such other jurisdiction by applicants meeting Florida's minimum educational qualifications was through the national physical therapy examination provider certified by the Department [of Health].[5] An applicant who has failed to pass the examination after five attempts, regardless of the jurisdiction through which the examination was taken, is precluded from licensure. No subsequent amendments have been made to Rule 64B17-3.003. The version of the rule that became effective November 11, 2002, is still in effect. Section 486.081, Florida Statutes, is cited as the "law implemented" in the current of version Rule 64B17-3.003, Florida Administrative Code, as it was in the pre-November 11, 2002, version of the rule. Florida, along with the other 49 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, use the NPTE (the only national examination of its kind available in this country) to test the competency of candidates for licensure by examination to practice as physical therapists. Florida has used the NPTE since June of 1994, when the examination was certified.6 There is no "Florida-developed examination." The Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy is the "provider" of the NPTE. The NPTE is a "criterion-based," minimum competency examination consisting of multiple-choice questions that is given only in English.7 It is designed to test whether candidates possess core skills basic to the practice of physical therapy, not their knowledge of the English language (although candidates "need a certain proficiency in English to fully understand the questions"). The examination is highly reliable in its measurement of entry-level knowledge in the discipline. "From a psychometric and statistical [perspective], [a] candidate would need to take the examination one time for [there to be] a very accurate estimate of [the candidate's competency]." It is reasonable, however, to permit a limited number of "retakes," in light of the possibility that "luck" or some other factor unrelated to the candidate's competency may have negatively impacted the candidate's test results. Allowing an "[u]nlimited number of retakes [of the NPTE]," though, diminishes the examination's reliability as a consequence of the "practice effect" and "repeat exposure" phenomena. It is contrary to "nationally and generally accepted testing standards" and increases the risk that a candidate lacking the required skills will be able to pass the examination. "[T]he number of times that Florida has set [for a candidate to take the NPTE] . . . is very ample and lenient."
The Issue The issues are those promoted by an administrative complaint brought by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, against the Respondent, Charles McArthur. In particular, it is alleged that the Respondent practiced pharmacy in the state of Florida with an expired license, in violation of Subsection 465.015(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1981).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Charles McArthur, is a pharmacist licensed by the State of Florida. His license number is 0012091. On June 20, 1983, Respondent attempted to renew his pharmacy license issued by the state of Florida on a bi-annual basis. He attempted this renewal by appearing in person before officials with the State of Florida, Board of Pharmacy, entitled to grant renewal. That renewal was denied based upon the fact that the Respondent was unable to provide verification of the requisite continuing education credits necessary for relicensure. As a consequence, on June 21, 1983 Respondent's active pharmacy license expired, leaving the Respondent with an inactive pharmacy license. For the period June 21, 1983 through July 20, 1983 Respondent practiced pharmacy with an inactive license. During that time frame, Thomas Hannah, an investigator with the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, visited the Respondent in the pharmacy in which Respondent was practicing in Tallahassee, Florida. He observed the Respondent practice pharmacy and noted the presence of the expired active Florida pharmacy license. On that occasion, Hannah told the Respondent that he was operating without a current license. On the following day, July 20, 1953, Respondent paid the appropriate fees and made proof of the requisite continuing education credits and his active pharmacy license was re-issued. Subsequent to that date Respondent has held an active pharmacy license issued by the State of Florida. In view of the Respondent's practice of pharmacy with an inactive license from the period of June 21, 1983 through July 20, 1983, Respondent was charged with the present offense and requested, and was granted, a formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing. In dealing with other recalcitrant licensees who have not renewed their licenses in the time allotted, the Board of Pharmacy, prior to February, 1980 sent a list to Board inspectors within one or two weeks following the due date of renewal and those inspectors contacted the licensees to ascertain whether the licensees had renewed their pharmacy licenses. If they found that the individual pharmacist did not renew his license that person was given an opportunity to fill out an application, to pay the fee, and to present his continuing education credits to the investigator. Persons who were not entitled to renew due to problems with the continuing education credits were told that they were delinquent, and practicing with a delinquent license was a violation of law. Those persons were given the opportunity to take leave of absence from their active pharmacy practice. Around February, 1980 due to the re- organization of the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, insufficient work force was available to carry out this process of checking on the topic of the delinquent license renewals, and this sequence of inactivity continued until approximately December, 1981. During this period actions were not brought against pharmacists for failure to timely renew a license to practice pharmacy, within the meaning of Section 465.015(2)(b), Florida Statutes, provided they renewed licenses within one year of the appropriate renewal date. In December, 1981 the practice changed and the pharmacists would be prosecuted for failure to timely renew a license to practice pharmacy and continuing to practice with an expired license. This change in policy position which occurred in December, 1981 was not shown in the course of the hearing to be a matter noticed for the benefit of the practicing pharmacists in the State of Florida.
