The Issue Whether Medicaid overpayments were made to Petitioner and, if so, what is the total amount of those overpayments.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, including the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation, the following findings s of fact are made: Petitioner and his Practice Petitioner is a general practice physician. He has been licensed to practice medicine in Florida for the past ten years. He is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, in private practice in Miami-Dade County, Florida Petitioner's Participation in the Medicaid Program During the Audit Period, Petitioner was authorized to provide physician services to eligible Medicaid patients. Petitioner provided such services pursuant to a valid provider agreement with AHCA.4 Petitioner's Medicaid provider number was, and remains, 3759873 00 Petitioner billed all of the Medicaid claims that are the subject of the instant controversy under this (individual) provider number. Handbook Provisions As a prerequisite to his entitlement to Medicaid payment for services rendered during the Audit Period, Petitioner was required to comply with, among other things, the provisions of the Physician Coverage and Limitations Handbook (PCL Handbook) then in effect. Medical Necessity Chapter 2 of the PCL Handbook provided that the Medicaid program would reimburse physician providers for services "determined [to be] medically necessary" and not duplicative of another provider's service, and it went on to state as follows: In addition, the services must meet the following criteria: the services must be individualized, specific, consistent with symptoms or confirmed diagnosis of the illness or injury under treatment, and not in excess of the recipient's needs; the services cannot be experimental or investigational; the services must reflect the level of services that can be safely furnished and for which no equally effective and more conservative or less costly treatment is available statewide; and the service must be furnished in a manner not primarily intended for the convenience of the recipient, the recipient's caretaker, or the provider. The fact that a provider has prescribed, recommended, or approved medical or allied care, goods, or services does not, in itself, make such care, goods or services medically necessary or a covered services. Radiology Services Chapter 2 of the PCL Handbook further provided that, "[t]o be reimbursed the maximum fee [or 'global fee'] for a radiology service, the physician must provide both the technical and professional components." A physician provider billing the "global fee" was not authorized, pursuant Chapter 2 of the PCL Handbook, to also seek additional payment for the "professional component" of that fee. Doing so amounted to impermissible "double-billing." Coding Chapter 3 of the PCL Handbook "describe[d] the procedure codes for the services reimbursable by Medicaid that [had to be] used by physicians providing services to eligible recipients." As explained on the first page of this chapter of the handbook: The procedure codes listed in this chapter [were] Health Care Financing Administration Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Levels 1, 2 and 3. These [were] based on the Physician[]s['] Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) book. The CPT include[d] HCPCS descriptive terms and numeric identifying codes and modifiers for reporting services and procedures. . . . The Physicians' Current Procedural Terminology At all times material to the instant case, the American Medical Association's Physicians' Current Procedural Terminology (or the "CPT") referred to in Chapter 3 of the PCL Handbook contained an "[i]ntroduction," which read, in pertinent part, as follows: Current Procedural Terminology, Fourth Edition (CPT) is a systematic listing and coding of procedures and services performed by physicians. Each procedure or service is identified by a five digit code. . . . Inclusion of a descriptor and its associated specific five-digit identifying code number in CPT is generally based upon the procedure being consistent with contemporary medical practice and being performed by many physicians in clinical practice in multiple locations. . . . * * * Section Numbers and Their Sequences Evaluation and Management 99201 to 99499 * * * Surgery 10040 to 69979 Radiology (Including Nuclear Medicine and Diagnostic Ultrasound) 70010 to 79999 Pathology and Laboratory 80002 to 89399 Medicine (except Anesthesiology) 90701 to 99199 * * * The CPT had "[e]valuation and [m]anagement (E/M) [s]ervice [g]uidelines" (E/M Guidelines). It was noted on the first page of the E/M Guidelines that: The E/M section is divided into broad categories such as office visits, hospital visits, and consultations. Most of the categories are further divided into two or more subcategories of E/M services. For example, there are two subcategories of office visits (new patient and established patient) and there are two subcategories of hospital visits (initial and subsequent). The subcategories of the E/M services are further classified into levels of E/M services that are identified by specific codes. . . . "New and [e]stablished patient[s]" were described in the E/M Guidelines as follows: A new patient is one who has not received any professional services from the physician or another physician of the same specialty who belongs to the same group practice, within the past three years. An established patient is one who has received professional services from the physician or another physician of the same specialty who belongs to the same group practice, within the past three years. The concept of "[l]evels of E/M [s]ervices" was described, in pertinent part, as follows in the E/M Guidelines: Within each category or subcategory of E/M service, there are three to five levels of E/M services available for reporting purposes. Levels of E/M services are not interchangeable among the different categories of service. For example, the first level of E/M services in the subcategory of office visit, new patient, does not have the same definition as the first level of E/M services in the subcategory of office visit, established patient. The levels of E/M services include examinations, evaluations, treatments, conferences with or concerning patients, preventative pediatric and adult health supervision, and similar medical services, such as the determination of the need and/or location for appropriate care. Medical screening includes the history, examination, and medical decision-making required to determine the need and/or location for appropriate care and treatment of the patient (e.g., office and other outpatient setting, emergency department, nursing facility, etc.). The levels of E/M services encompass the wide variations in skill, effort, time, responsibility and medical knowledge required for the prevention or diagnosis and treatment of illness or injury and the promotion of optimal health. Each level of E/M services may be used by all physicians. The descriptors for the levels of E/M services recognize seven components, six of which are used in defining the levels of E/M services. These components are: history; examination; medical decision making; counseling; coordination of care; nature of presenting problem; and time. The first three of these components (history, examination and medical decision making) are considered the key components in selecting a level of E/M services. . . . The next three components (counseling, coordination of care, and the nature of the presenting problem) are considered contributory factors in the majority of encounters. . . . * * * The actual performance and/or interpretation of diagnostic tests/studies ordered during a patient encounter are not included in the levels of E/M services. Physician performance of diagnostic tests for which specific CPT codes are available may be reported separately, in addition to the appropriate E/M code. The physician's interpretation of the results or diagnostic tests/studies (i.e., professional component) with preparation of a separate distinctly identifiable signed written report may also be reported separately, using the appropriate CPT code with the modifier -26 appended. * * * Time . . . . The inclusion of time as an explicit factor beginning in CPT 1992 is done to assist physicians in selecting the most appropriate level of E/M services. It should be recognized that the specific times expressed in the visit code descriptors are averages, and therefore represent a range of times which may be higher or lower depending on actual clinical circumstances. * * * The E/M Guidelines contained "[i]nstructions for [s]electing a [l]evel of E/M [s]ervice," which read, in pertinent part, as follows: * * * Review of Level of E/M Service Descriptors and Examples in the Selected Category or Subcategory The descriptors for the levels of E/M services recognize seven components, six of which are used in defining the levels of E/M services. These components are: history; examination; medical decision making; counseling; coordination of care; nature of presenting problem; and time. The first three or these components (i.e., history, examination and medical decision making) are considered the key components in selecting a level of E/M services. An exception to this rule is in the case of visits which consist predominantly of counseling or coordination of care. . . . The nature of the presenting problem and time are provided in some levels to assist the physician in determining the appropriate level of E/M service. Determine the Extent of History Obtained The extent of history is dependent upon clinical judgment and on the nature of the presenting problem(s). The levels of E/M services recognize four types of history that are defined as followed: Problem Focused: chief complaint; brief history of present illness or problem. Expanded Problem Focused: chief complaint; brief history of present illness; problem pertinent system review. Detailed: chief complaint; extended history of present illness; problem pertinent system review extended to include a review of a limited number of additional systems; pertinent past, family and/or social history directly related to the patient's problems. Comprehensive: chief complaint; extended history of present illness; review of systems which is directly related to the problem(s) identified in the history of the present illness plus a review of all additional body systems; complete past, family and social history. * * * Determine the Extent of Examination Performed The extent of the examination performed is dependent on clinical judgment and on the nature of the presenting problem(s). The levels of E/M services recognize four types of examinations that are defined as follows: Problem Focused: a limited examination of the affected body area or organ system. Expanded Problem Focused: a limited examination of the affected body area or organ system and other symptomatic or related organ system(s). Detailed: an extended examination of the affected body area(s) and other symptomatic or related organ system(s). Comprehensive: a general multi-system examination or a complete examination of a single organ system. . . . For the purposes of these CPT definitions, the following body areas are recognized Head, including the face Neck Chest, including breasts and axilla Abdomen Genitalia, groin, buttocks Back Each extremity For the purposes of these CPT definitions, the following organ systems are recognized Eyes Ears, Nose, Mouth and Throat Cardiovascular Respiratory Gastrointestinal Genitourinary Musculoskeletal Skin Neurologic Psychiatric Hematologic/Lymphatic/Immunologic Determine the Complexity of Medical Decision Making Medical decision making refers to the complexity of establishing a diagnosis and/or selecting a management option as measured by: the number of possible diagnoses and/or the number of management options that must be considered; the amount and/or complexity of medical records, diagnostic tests, and/or other information that must be obtained, reviewed and analyzed; and -The risk of significant complications, morbidity and/or mortality, as well as comorbidities, associated with the patient's presenting problem(s), the diagnostic procedure(s) and/or the possible management options. Four types of medical decision making are recognized: straightforward; low complexity; moderate complexity; and high complexity. To qualify for a given type of decision making, two of the three elements [shown below] must be met or exceeded. Type of Decision Making: straightforward; Number of Diagnoses or Management Options: minimal; Amount and/or Complexity of Data to be Reviewed: minimal or none; Risk of Complications and/or Morbidity or Mortality: minimal Type of Decision Making: low complexity; Number of Diagnoses or Management Options: limited; Amount and/or Complexity of Data to be Reviewed: limited; Risk of Complications and/or Morbidity or Mortality: low Type of Decision making: moderate complexity; Number of Diagnoses or Management Options: multiple; Amount and/or Complexity of Data to be Reviewed: moderate; Risk of Complications and/or Morbidity or Mortality: moderate Type of Decision Making: High complexity; Number of Diagnoses or Management Options: extensive; Amount and/or Complexity of Data to be Reviewed: extensive; Risk of Complications and/or Morbidity or Mortality: high Comorbidities/underlying diseases, in and of themselves, are not considered in selecting a level of E/M services unless their presence significantly increases the complexity of the medical decision making. Select the Appropriate Level of E/M Services Based on the Following For the following categories/ subcategories, all of the key components, i.e., history, examination, and medical decision making, must meet or exceed the stated requirements to qualify for a particular level of E/M service: office, new patient; hospital observation services; initial hospital care; office consultations; initial inpatient consultations; confirmatory consultations; emergency department services; comprehensive nursing facility assessments; domiciliary care, new patient; and home, new patient. . . For the following categories/ subcategories, two of the three key components, (i.e., history, examination, and medical decision making) must meet or exceed the stated requirements to qualify for a particular level of E/M service: office, established patient; subsequent hospital care; follow-up inpatient consultations; subsequent nursing facility care; domiciliary care, established patient; and home, established patient. In the case where counseling and/or coordination of care dominates (more than 50%) of the physician/patient and/or family encounter (face-to-face time in the office or other outpatient setting or floor/unit time in the hospital or nursing facility) then time is considered the key or controlling factor to qualify for a particular level of E/M services. The extent of counseling and/or coordination of care must be documented in the medical record.[5] The CPT contained the following codes and code descriptions for "E/M" office and other outpatient services: New Patient 99201 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient, which requires these three key components: a problem focused history; a problem focused examination; and straightforward medical decision making. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problems are self- limited or minor. Physicians typically spend 10 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * 99202 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient which requires these three key components: an expanded problem focused history; an expanded problem focused examination; and straightforward medical decision making. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of low to moderate severity. Physicians typically spend 20 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * 99203 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient which requires these three key components: a detailed history; a detailed examination; and medical decision making of low complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate severity. Physicians typically spend 30 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * 99204 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient which requires these three key components: a comprehensive history; a comprehensive examination; and medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate to high severity. Physicians typically spend 45 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * 99205 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient which requires these three key components: a comprehensive history; a comprehensive examination; and medical decision making of high complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problems are of moderate to high severity. Physicians typically spend 60 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * Established Patient 99211 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient that may not require the presence of a physician. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are minimal. Typically, 5 minutes are spent performing or supervising these services. * * * 99212 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: a problem focused history; a problem focused examination; straightforward medical decision making. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are self- limited or minor. Physicians typically spend 10 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * 99213 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: an expanded problem focused history; an expanded problem focused examination; medical decision making of low complexity. Counseling and coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of low to moderate severity. Physicians typically spend 15 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * 99214 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: a detailed history; a detailed examination; medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate to high severity. Physicians typically spend 25 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * 99215 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: a comprehensive history; a comprehensive examination; medical decision making of high complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate to high severity. Physicians typically spend 40 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. The CPT provided separate codes for "prolonged physician service with direct (face-to-face) patient contact" and contained the following explanation as to when these codes were to be used: Codes 99354-99357 are used when a physician provides prolonged service involving direct (face-to-face) patient contact that is beyond the usual service in either the inpatient or outpatient setting. This service is reported in addition to other physician service, including evaluation and management service at any level. Appropriate codes should be selected for supplies or procedures performed in the care of the patient during this period. Codes 99354-99357 are used to report the total duration of face-to-face time spent by a physician on a given date providing prolonged service, even if the time spent by the physician on that date is not continuous. Code 99354 or 99356 is used to report the first hour of prolonged service on a given date, depending on the place of service. Either code also may be used to report a total duration of prolonged service of 30-60 minutes on a given date. Either code should be used only once per date, even if the time spent by the physician is not continuous on that date. Prolonged service of less than 30 minutes total duration on a given date is not separately reported because the work involved is included in the total work of the evaluation and management codes. Code 99355 or 99357 is used to report each additional 30 minutes beyond the first hour, depending on the place of service. Either code may also be used to report the final 15-30 minutes of prolonged service on a given date. Prolonged service of less than 15 minutes beyond the first hour or less than 15 minutes beyond the final 30 minutes is not reported separately. * * * The Audit and Aftermath Commencing in or around August 2000, AHCA conducted an audit of paid Medicaid claims submitted by Petitioner for services assertedly rendered from May 22, 1998, through May 22, 2000.6 Petitioner had submitted 4,574 Medicaid claims for services assertedly rendered during the Audit Period to 492 patients, for which he had received payments totaling $156,903.14. From the 492 Medicaid patients to whom Petitioner had assertedly provided services during the Audit Period, AHCA randomly selected a "cluster sample" of 41, and obtained from Petitioner medical records he had on file for these 41 patients. Petitioner had submitted a total of 325 claims for services assertedly rendered to the 41 patients in the "cluster sample" during the Audit Period and had received a total of $11,562.14 in Medicaid payments for these services.7 Each of these claims was reviewed to determine whether it was supported by information contained in the medical records obtained from Petitioner. Based on a preliminary review, AHCA determined that Petitioner had been overpaid a total $58,157.96 for the Medicaid claims he had submitted for services assertedly rendered during the Audit Period. By letter dated September 10, 2002, AHCA advised Petitioner of this preliminary determination and "encourage[d] [him] to submit any additional information or documentation" in his possession that he believed would "serve to reduce the overpayment." The antepenultimate and penultimate paragraphs of the letter read as follows: Since you have a choice of accepting the above overpayment or submitting additional information, this is not a final action by the Agency for Health Care Administration. If you have not made payment within thirty (30) days, we will prepare and send to you the final agency determination, taking into consideration any information or documentation that you submit within that time period. Petitioner did not "ma[k]e payment within thirty (30) days" of AHCA's September 10, 2002, letter. As promised, following another review conducted after the expiration of this 30-day period, AHCA "prepare[d] and sen[t] to [Petitioner]" its Final Agency Audit Report showing the calculation of overpayments made to Petitioner during the Audit Period.8 AHCA's Final Agency Audit Report was dated January 28, 2003, and in the form of a letter to Petitioner, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: Medicaid Integrity has completed the review of your Medicaid claims for the procedures specified below for dates of service during the period May 22, 1998 through May 22, 2000. A Provisional Agency Audit Report, dated September 10, 2002, was sent to you indicating that we had determined you were overpaid $58,157.96. Based upon a review of all documentation submitted, we have determined that you were overpaid $58,157.96 for services that in whole or in part are not covered by Medicaid. Pursuant to Section 409.913, Florida Statutes (F.S.), this letter shall serve as notice of the following sanction(s): The provider is subject to comprehensive follow-up review in six months. In determining the appropriateness of Medicaid payment pursuant to Medicaid policy, the Medicaid program utilizes procedure codes, descriptions, policies, limitations and requirements found in the Medicaid provider handbooks and Section 409.913, F.S. In applying for Medicaid reimbursement providers are required to follow the guidelines set forth in the applicable rules[9] and Medicaid fee schedules, as promulgated in the Medicaid policy handbooks, billing bulletins, and the Medicaid provider agreement. Medicaid cannot pay for services that do not meet these guidelines. The following is our assessment of why certain claims paid to your provider number do not meet Medicaid requirements. The audit work papers detailing the claims affected by this assessment are attached. REVIEW DETERMINATION(S) Medicaid policy specifies how medical records must be maintained. A review of your medical records revealed that some services for which you billed and received payment were not documented. Medicaid requires documentation of the services and considers payments made for services not appropriately documented an overpayment. Medicaid policy defines the varying levels of care and expertise required for the evaluation and management procedure codes for office visits. The documentation you provided supports a lower level of office visit than the one for which you billed and received payment. The difference between the amounts you were paid and the correct payment for the appropriate level of service is considered an overpayment. Medicaid policy requires services performed be medically necessary for the diagnosis and treatment of an illness. You billed and received payments for services for which the medical records, when reviewed by a Medicaid physician consultant, indicated that the services provided did not meet the Medicaid criteria for medical necessity. The claims, which were considered medically unnecessary, were disallowed and the money you were paid for these procedures is considered an overpayment. Medicaid policy addresses specific billing requirements and procedures. In some instances, you billed a procedure code as global and also billed the professional when the professional component was incorporated in the global fee. The difference between the amounts you were paid and the appropriate fee is considered an overpayment. The overpayment was calculated as follows: A random sample of 41 recipients respecting whom you submitted 325 claims was reviewed. For those claims in the sample which have dates of service from May 22, 1998, through May 22, 2000, an overpayment of $5,004.04 or $15.39704606 per claim was found, as indicated on the accompanying schedule. Since you were paid for a total (population) of 4,574 claims for that period, the point estimate of the total overpayment is $15.39704606 x 4,574=$70,426.09. There is a 50 percent probability that the overpayment to you is that amount or more. There was then an explanation of the "statistical formula for cluster sampling" that AHCA used and how it "calculated that the overpayment to [Petitioner was] $58,157.96 with a ninety-five percent (95%) probability that it is that amount or more." The concluding portions of the letter advised Petitioner of his right to "request an administrative hearing [on this overpayment determination] pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes." The "Medicaid physician consultant" referred to in AHCA's January 28, 2003, letter was Lisa Kohler, M.D., a Florida-licensed "family physician," who is certified by the American Board of Family Practice and is a fellow of the American Academy of Family Physicians. Dr. Kohler received her medical education at the University of South Florida College of Medicine, from which she graduated in 1985. After graduation, she did her internship and residency at Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center's Family Practice Residency program. In 1988, following the completion of her residency, she entered private practice. She currently serves as the Associate Director of the Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center's Family Practice Residency program. In addition, she is a Clinical Assistant Professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of South Florida College of Medicine and the Volunteer Medical Director of the Neighborhood Health Services in Tallahassee, Florida, a health clinic that provides free medical care to indigent patients. In accordance with the "peer review" provisions of Section 409.9131, Florida Statutes, which became effective July 1, 1999, AHCA had Dr. Kohler review all of the records that Petitioner had provided regarding the 41 patients in the "cluster sample"10 to determine whether there was documentation to support the Medicaid claims relating to these patients that Petitioner had submitted for services assertedly rendered during the Audit Period. In conducting her "peer review," Dr. Kohler did not interview any of the 41 patients in the "cluster sample," nor did she take any other steps to supplement the information contained in the records she examined. Her assessment of the propriety of Petitioner's billing was based exclusively on what was in those records and no other information. On February 19, 2003, Petitioner requested an administrative hearing on the overpayment determination (announced in AHCA's January 28, 2003, letter to Petitioner). On or about August 20, 2003, following a meeting between the parties, AHCA made a downward revision in its overpayment calculation, to $47,931.79. AHCA has made no additional revisions to its overpayment calculation in the instant case. It maintains that Petitioner received $47,931.79 in Medicaid overpayments for services claimed to have been provided during the Audit Period. In making this final overpayment calculation, AHCA determined, correctly, that Petitioner was overpaid a total of $3,867.62, or $11.90036931 per claim, for the 325 claims he had submitted seeking reimbursement from Medicaid for services assertedly rendered during the Audit Period to the 41 patients in the "cluster sample." Using a statistical formula the validity of which Petitioner has not disputed, AHCA extended these results to the total "population" of 4,574 Medicaid claims that Petitioner had submitted for services assertedly rendered during the Audit Period, and it correctly calculated that Petitioner had been overpaid a total of $47,931.79. Simple Mistake or Fraud? There has been no allegation made, nor proof submitted, that any of Petitioner's overbillings was the product of anything other than simple mistake or inadvertence on Petitioner's part.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that AHCA enter a final order finding that Petitioner received $47,931.79 in Medicaid overpayments for paid claims covering the period from May 22, 1998, through May 22, 2000, and requiring Petitioner to repay this amount to AHCA. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2004, 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 15th day of June, 2004.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a Medicaid provider, committed the violations alleged in the agency action letter dated March 14, 2011, and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been a provider with the Florida Medicaid Program and has had a valid Medicaid Provider Agreement with Petitioner. Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of administering the Florida Medicaid Program. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was subject to all applicable federal and state laws, regulations, rules, and Medicaid Handbooks. Respondent is required to comply with the Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook (the General Handbook). The General Handbook requires a provider to have medical documentation that justifies the necessity of services provided to a recipient. The General Handbook advises that sanctions may be imposed if appropriate documentation is not kept. Respondent is an "Assistive Care Services" provider under the Florida Medicaid Program and is required to comply with the "Assistive Care Services Coverage and Limitation Handbook" (ACS Handbook). The ACS Handbook requires that each recipient of Assistive Care Services from the Florida Medicaid Plan have a RSP, and provides, in relevant part (at Petitioner's Exhibit 7, page 39): Every [Assistive Care Services] recipient must have a service plan completed by the [Assistive Care Services] service provider. . . . The ALF [is] responsible for ensuring the service plan is developed and implemented. The ACS Handbook further requires (at Petitioner's Exhibit 7, page 40): The Resident Service Plan for Assistive Care Services (AHCA-Med Serv [sic] Form 036) must be completed within 15 days after the initial health assessment or annual assessment, be in writing, and based on information contained in the health assessment. . . . The ACS handbook further provides (at Petitioner's Exhibit 7, page 40), that both the recipient (or the recipient's guardian or designated representative) and the ALF administrator (or the person designated in writing by the administrator) must sign and date the RSP. The RSP is considered complete as of the last date signed by either party. The provider (in this case Respondent) is responsible for timely completing the RSP for each Medicaid recipient in its facility. Inspector Marie Josue conducted an on-site visit to Respondent's premises on February 1, 2011. At the time of that inspection, Respondent reviewed a sample of ten RSPs for ten residents who received Assistive Care Services from the Florida Medicaid Program. Two of those ten RSPs had been timely signed and dated by the resident (or the resident's guardian or designee) and by Respondent's administrator (or the administrator's designee). The remaining eight RSPs had been timely signed and dated by the resident (or the resident's guardian or designee), but each had not been signed or dated by Respondent's facility administrator (or the administrator's written designee). Each RSP pre-dated February 1, 2011, by more than 15 days. The respective health assessments that formed the basis for each RSP occurred between March 23 and December 25, 2010. Respondent subsequently provided Ms. Josue with certain records that she had requested, including copies of the eight RSPs at issue in this proceeding. When she reviewed those records, Ms. Josue discovered that Respondent's administrator had signed and dated each previously unsigned RSP on February 1, 2011. Those signings by the administrator were untimely. Ms. Josue forwarded the results of her investigation to Mr. Dozier with a recommendation that Respondent be sanctioned for violating the provisions of section 409.913(15)(e), Florida Statutes, by the imposition of a $1,000.00 fine for each of the eight violations pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-9.070(7)(e). When she made her recommendation, Ms. Josue understood that the cited rule required a minimum fine of $1,000.00 per violation. Mr. Dozier accepted that recommendation and prepared the agency action letter dated March 14, 2011. Mr. Dozier consulted with two of his fellow administrators before concluding that the fine recommended by Ms. Josue was appropriate. He testified that he could have charged Respondent with violating section violating section 409.913(15)(d), which could have resulted in an administrative fine in the amount of $20,000.001/ Mr. Dozier considered an administrative fine in the amount of $8,000.00 to be more appropriate. Based on services provided to Medicaid patients pursuant to approved RSPs, Respondent submits claims to the Florida totaling between $6,450.00 and $9,200.00 per month. Petitioner routinely pays those claims. Each RSP at issue in this proceeding complied with the ACS Handbook except for the failure of the facility administrator (or designee) to timely sign the eight RSPs. RSPS are the guides to the services that will be provided by Respondent and reimbursed by the Medicaid Program by Petitioner. The requirement that the administrator (or designee) sign each plan is an effort to combat fraud. There was no evidence that the failure to sign the eight plans at issue in this proceeding was more than an error. Specifically, there was no evidence of fraud. There was no allegation that the lack of the administrator's signature on the eight plans at issue had any effect on the care provided to the eight Medicaid patients. Ms. Pace has been Respondent's administrator for over 13 years. Ms. Pace is familiar with RSPs and the rules and regulations governing the Florida Medicaid Program. Ms. Pace knew that the RSPs must be completed within 15 days of the assessment by a physician. Ms. Pace knew that the patient (or designee) and the administrator (or designee) must sign the RSP for it to be complete. Ms. Pace acknowledged that the eight RSPs at issue in this proceeding were not signed by anyone on behalf of the provider until February 1, 2010. Ms. Pace had designated a subordinate to sign the eight PSAs at issue in this proceeding on behalf of the provider. She had no explanation why those RSPs were not timely signed by anyone on behalf of the provider.
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 finding La Hacienda Gardens, LLC, guilty of the eight violations of section 409.913(15)(e) alleged in the agency action letter dated March 14, 2011. It is further recommended that the final order impose administrative fines in the amount of $1,000.00 per violation for a total of $8,000.00. S DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 1st day of February, 2012.
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency or AHCA) is entitled to recover certain Medicaid funds paid to Lee Memorial Health System, d/b/a Lee Memorial Hospital (Respondent or Lee Memorial), for services provided to undocumented aliens: between January 1 through December 31, 2006, as alleged in AHCA’s Amended Final Audit Report, dated July 25, 2014 (DOAH Case 14-4171); and January 1 through December 31, 2007, as alleged in AHCA’s Final Audit Report, dated March 12, 2015 (DOAH Case 15-3271).
Findings Of Fact THE PARTICIPANTS Lee Memorial was, at all relevant times, an enrolled Medicaid provider authorized to receive reimbursement for covered goods and services provided to Medicaid recipients. As an enrolled provider, Lee Memorial’s participation in the Florida Medicaid Program is subject to the terms of the Medicaid Provider Agreement. The Florida Medicaid Program requires compliance with all state and federal laws governing the Medicaid program, including the state and federal laws limiting Medicaid payments for services provided to aliens. As indicated, the Agency is the single state agency responsible for administering or supervising the administration of the Florida Medicaid Program (Medicaid). § 409.901(15), Fla. Stat. PRELIMINARY: FLORIDA MEDICAID PROGRAM Section 409.901(16), Florida Statutes, provides that the Medicaid program is “authorized under Title XIX of the federal Social Security Act which provides for payments for medical items or services, or both, on behalf of any person who is determined by the Department of Children and Families, or, for Supplemental Security Income, by the Social Security Administration, to be eligible on the date of service for Medicaid assistance.” The Medicaid program is jointly funded by the federal government and the individual states that have elected to participate in the program, of which Florida is one. Federal payments to the states for a portion of the cost of Medicaid are referred to as federal financial participation (FFP). AHCA administers the Medicaid program. AHCA is authorized to make payments to Medicaid providers for medical assistance and related services under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. However, in order to receive Medicaid assistance, the Department of Children and Families (DCF) must determine the eligibility of applicants for that assistance. Pursuant to section 409.902(1), DCF has adopted Florida Administrative Code Rule 65A-1.715 which addresses Medicaid eligibility for aliens. This rule provides: Aliens who would be eligible for Medicaid but for their immigration status are eligible only for emergency medical services. Section 409.901(10) F.S., defines emergency medical conditions. The Utilization Review Committee (URC) or medical provider will determine if the medical condition warrants emergency medical services and, if so, the projected duration of the emergency medical condition. The projected duration of the emergency medical condition will be the eligibility period provided that all other criteria are continuously satisfied. Emergency services are limited to 30 consecutive days without prior approval. For continued coverage beginning with the 31st day prior authorization must be obtained from the Agency for Health Care Administration (Medicaid Program Office). [Emphasis added]. The eligibility period for alien recipients is also described in rule 65A-1.702, which states: (2) Date of Eligibility. The date eligibility for Medicaid begins. This was formerly called the date of entitlement. The date of eligibility includes the three months immediately preceding the month of application (called the retroactive period). Eligibility for Medicaid begins the first day of a month if an individual was eligible any time during the month, with the following exceptions: * * * (c) Coverage for individuals eligible for the Emergency Medicaid for Aliens program begins the first day of a covered emergency and ends the day following the last day of the emergency medical situation. [Emphasis added]. DCF is performing an administrative function, solely to determine if the alien is eligible to receive medical assistance. DCF does not determine the duration of the emergency medical condition. DCF does not make a clinical medical determination regarding any patient because it does not have medical professionals to verify the information received. DCF has the dates of eligibility, but AHCA determines which bills are paid. AHCA relies on licensed medical physicians to determine the duration of the emergency medical services. Undocumented aliens do not qualify to receive full Medicaid benefits. As detailed in Agency handbooks, the aid is limited to the treatment of an emergency medical condition up to the point that condition has been alleviated. According to section 409.902(2), Medicaid eligibility is restricted to U.S. citizens and lawfully admitted noncitizens who meet the criteria provided in section 414.095(3), Florida Statute.4/ The criteria mean that undocumented or illegal aliens are generally not eligible for Medicaid assistance. All of the claims in dispute in this case involve payments on behalf of undocumented noncitizens who will be referred to herein as "aliens." As an exception to the general rule, episodic eligibility is available to an alien who is either pregnant or seeking "services [which] are necessary to treat an emergency medical condition." § 409.902(2)(b), Fla. Stat. "The eligibility of . . . a recipient [who meets all other requirements for Medicaid eligibility except citizenship and who is in need of emergency medical services] is limited to the period of the emergency, in accordance with federal regulations." § 409.904(4), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). An alien is eligible for medical assistance only if he has an "emergency medical condition" requiring "emergency medical services"--and then only for those services "necessary to treat [the] emergency medical condition" that are provided during the "period of the emergency," the conclusion of which terminates the alien's eligibility. The term "emergency medical condition" (EMC) is defined in section 409.901(10)(a) as: A medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity, which may include severe pain or other acute symptoms, such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in any of the following: Serious jeopardy to the health of a patient, including a pregnant woman or a fetus. Serious impairment to bodily functions. Serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part. Section 409.901(11) provides the following definition of “emergency services and care”: [M]edical screening, examination, and evaluation by a physician, or, to the extent permitted by applicable laws, by other appropriate personnel under the supervision of a physician, to determine whether an emergency medical condition exists and, if it does, the care, treatment, or surgery for a covered service by a physician which is necessary to relieve or eliminate the emergency medical condition, within the service capability of a hospital. Section 409.904(4) provides: A low-income person who meets all other requirements for Medicaid eligibility except citizenship and who is in need of emergency medical services. The eligibility of such a recipient is limited to the period of the emergency, in accordance with federal regulations. Section 409.905(5) has, since 2005, consistently provided that AHCA shall pay for “all covered services provided for the medical care and treatment of a recipient” admitted as an inpatient by a licensed physician to a licensed hospital. However, covered payments can be determined by the patients’ physical condition. AHCA is authorized to “conduct or cause to be conducted . . . reviews, investigation, analyses, audits, or any combination thereof, to determine possible fraud, abuse, overpayment, . . . in the Medicaid program and shall report the findings of any overpayments in audit reports as appropriate . . . . Medical necessity determination requires that service be consistent with symptoms or confirmed diagnosis of illness or injury under treatment and not in excess of the patient’s needs.” § 409.913(2), Fla. Stat. Section 409.913(1)(e) defines “overpayment” to mean “any amount that is not authorized to be paid by the Medicaid program whether paid as a result of inaccurate or improper cost reporting, improper claiming, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse, or mistake.” As found in section 409.913(1)(a)1, “abuse” means “[p]rovider practices that are inconsistent with generally accepted business or medical practices and that result in an unnecessary cost to the Medicaid program or in reimbursement for goods or services that are not medically necessary or that fail to meet professionally recognized standards of health care.” Further, under section 409.913(5), a Medicaid provider “is subject to having goods and services that are paid for by the Medicaid program reviewed by an appropriate peer-review organization designated by the agency. The written findings of the applicable peer-review organization are admissible in any court or administrative proceeding as evidence of medical necessity or the lack thereof.” AHCA has authority to “adopt any rules necessary to comply with or administer ss. 409.901-409.920 and all rules necessary to comply with federal requirements.” § 409.919, Fla. Stat. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-4.160 provides that all enrolled hospital providers must comply with the provisions of the Florida Medicaid Hospital Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook. As found on page 2 through 7 of this handbook: The Medicaid Hospital Services Program reimburses for emergency services provided to aliens who meet all Medicaid eligibility requirements except for citizenship or alien status. Eligibility can be authorized only for the duration of the emergency. Medicaid will not pay for continuous or episodic services after the emergency has been alleviated. Dialysis is considered an emergency service. [Emphasis added]. Rule 59G-5.020 provided for the use of the Florida Medicaid Provider Handbook. On page 3 through 22 under the heading, “Emergency: Medicaid for Aliens,” it provides: Eligibility can be authorized only for the duration of the emergency. Medicaid will not pay for continuous or episodic services after the emergency has been alleviated. All claims must be accompanied by documentation of the emergency nature of the service. Exceptions are labor, delivery, and dialysis services. These are considered emergencies and are payable without documentation when the emergency indicator is entered on the claim form. [Emphasis added]. CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS In 2009, the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), conducted a “Review of Florida’s Medicaid Payments for Emergency Services to Undocumented Aliens” (review). The review was directed to AHCA for the purpose of determining “whether AHCA’s billing for emergency medical services to undocumented aliens in the State of Florida complies with applicable Federal statutes and CMS’ regulations.” One of the review’s findings was that “AHCA is claiming FFP for emergency medical services to undocumented aliens provided beyond what Federal statutes and regulations define to be an emergency.” CMS recommended that “AHCA should review all emergency services for undocumented alien amounts claimed for FFP during Federal Fiscal Years 2005, 2006, and 2007 and re-determine allowability of these claims utilizing the required Federal criteria” and that AHCA “promptly implement the necessary system edits so that services provided as emergent care [could] be differentiated from services provided after the point the patients are stable, and then bill to the proper Federal programs.” In September 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, published its “Review of Medicaid Funding for Emergency Services Provided to Nonqualified Aliens” (report). The report described existing internal controls at AHCA that needed to be improved in order to assure that “all claims for services provided to undocumented aliens are for conditions that the State agency defines as emergency services.” RN Ryder explained that AHCA’s internal controls, mainly the computer program, prevented the reviewers from adjusting a claim’s length of stay to the point where the emergency condition had been alleviated. Rather, the computer would only allow for the approval or denial of a claim. AHCA’s response to the report provided: The Agency’s contracted quality improvement organization began reviewing all requests for Medicaid reimbursement of inpatient emergency services for undocumented aliens on July 1, 2010. These reviews determine the point at which the emergency no longer exists, consistent with federal regulations and deny Medicaid reimbursement for the remainder of the inpatient stay. The Agency is also undertaking a retrospective review of all inpatient alien claims from July 2005 through June 30, 2010, to determine point of stabilization. Any payments made in error will be recouped, and the federal share will be adjusted on the Form CMS-64. The retrospective reviews will begin October 1, 2010. In August 2012, health care providers, including Lee Memorial, filed a Petition for Determination of Invalidity of Non-Rule Policy. This rule challenge, known as Bayfront I, ended with the December 12, 2012, Final Order that AHCA’s use of “the ‘point of stabilization’ standard was an interpretation or an implementation of the existing statutes and rules and not merely a restatement of them.” As such, AHCA discontinued reliance on the “stabilization standard.” In October 2014, health care providers, including Lee Memorial, filed a second Petition for Determination of Invalidity of Non-Rule Policy or In the Alternative for Determination of the Invalidity of a Rule. This rule challenge, known as Bayfront II, ended with the April 20, 2015, Final Order5/ that AHCA, having provided notice that it was going to start enforcing it statutes and rules, did not change “an interpretation or way of applying a statute or its rules. It is just starting to enforce them, as they are written, after years of neglecting to enforce them.” See Bayfront Med. Ctr., et al. v. AHCA, Case No. 14-4758, FO at 69 (Fla. DOAH Apr. 20, 2015). PROCESS One method the Agency uses to discover Medicaid overpayments is by auditing billing and payment records of Medicaid providers. Such audits are performed by staff in the Agency's MPI. MPI is responsible for reviewing providers to assure that paid claims for services rendered were in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations and handbook(s). MPI looks to ensure that the provider is enrolled, the recipient is eligible, the service billed is covered, and the service is billed appropriately. As an example: An alien is in need of medical care, emergent or otherwise. The alien applies through DCF to become eligible for medical services, and is deemed eligible. An EMC arises, and the alien immediately presents to a duly enrolled Medicaid Provider, a health care facility of some type.6/ The alien is admitted as an inpatient on day one, and emergency health care services are provided. The EMC is alleviated as of day three, yet the alien remains in the health care facility for ten more days, receiving medical services, but not of the emergent type. The alien is discharged from the facility on day The facility bills the Medicaid program for 13 days of service. It is not uncommon for the alien’s eligibility to be determined after the hospitalization has ended, and the provider is seeking to cover its costs. PEER REVIEW When a claim was presented for peer review, the peer reviewers were directed to base the review on the standards governing emergency Medicaid for Aliens under state and federal laws, rules, and regulations. The peer reviewers had three issues to determine: whether an EMC existed, the length or duration of the emergency services (when the EMC was alleviated), and whether there were sufficient medical documentation/records to perform a medical review of the rendered services. The peer reviewers were all Florida-licensed physicians, either allopathic or osteopathic, who were matched by specialty or subspecialty to the claims they were reviewing. Each physician testified as to his or her medical or osteopathic education, background and training. Petitioner offered each physician as an expert, and each was accepted as such. The physicians were trained by their peer review organization on the statutes and rules regarding emergency Medicaid for aliens. The physicians then applied the standards contained in the statutes and rules with their education, training and experience to determine whether an EMC existed, the date on which the EMC was alleviated, and whether there were sufficient medical records upon which to make those determinations. SPECIFIC CLAIMS TO DOAH CASE NO. 14-4171 Adam Berko, D.O, a Board-certified family practitioner (a/k/a general practitioner), credibly testified regarding the following claim: Claim (Patient) 3, an 18-year-old male, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on December 5, 2006, complaining of shortness of breath, chest pain, body aches and abdominal pain. He was diagnosed with acute renal failure and leukocytosis with bandermia. Patient 3 was discharged from the hospital on December 14, 2006. Dr. Berko credibly testified that Patient 3’s EMC had been alleviated as of December 9, 2006. Mark Kanarek, M.D., a Board-certified pediatric physician credibly testified regarding the following claims: Claim (Patient) 4, an 11-year-old female, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on December 6, 2006, with abdominal pain and emesis (vomiting). It was medically necessary to admit Patient 4. An x-ray was taken which showed a subacute intestinal obstruction secondary to adhesions. A follow-up x-ray on December 7, showed there was a resolution of the small bowel distention. By December 8, Patient 4 was having regular bowel movements, which signified no further obstruction. She remained in the hospital until December 10, 2016; however, when Patient 4’s bowel obstruction was alleviated on the 8th, the EMC was alleviated. Claim (Patient) 21, a four-year-old male with Down’s syndrome presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on July 18, 2006, with a fever following a diagnosis of leukemia. It was an emergent condition for which hospitalization was necessary. Patient 21 continued to have fever spikes through July 23, 2006, which placed the child at a continued risk for life-threatening sepsis. The blood cultures returned as negative and the child was fever-free. Patient 21 remained in the hospital until July 26, 2006, however when the patient’s fever broke, on the 23rd, and the blood cultures returned as negative, the EMC was alleviated. Michael Phillips, M.D., a Board-certified internist credibly testified regarding the following claims: Claim (Patient) 5, an 86-year-old female, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on April 11, 2006, with nausea, vomiting and dehydration. Given Patient 5’s age and condition, it was medically necessary to admit her. Patient 5 received IV fluids, which were stopped on April 12, 2006. As such, on April 12, Patient 5’s EMC was alleviated, and she was discharged on April 13, 2006. Claim (Patient) 8, a 31-year-old male presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on October 6, 2006, complaining of weakness and dizziness since that morning. Patient 8 was found to have new onset diabetes, after having lost approximately 47 pounds in the preceding four or five months. The admitting diagnosis was “syncope and collapse,” but without mention of a loss of consciousness. There was discussion regarding the signs of the significant weight loss. Patient 8 was discharged on October 12, following his receipt of insulin,7/ oral hypoglycemics8/ and education for his diabetic condition. Patient 8 had “a chronic medical condition that required treatment, but again, it wasn’t something that required immediate emergency care.” There was no EMC. Claim (Patient) 11, a 26-year-old male with a history of testicular cancer, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on August 29, 2006, for his fifth cycle of chemotherapy. Patient 11 was admitted to a regular nursing floor for his scheduled chemotherapy treatment. Patient 11 was discharged on September 4, 2006. Patient 11 did not have an EMC nor did he receive any emergency services; rather, he had a scheduled medical treatment. Claim (Patient) 27, a 43-year-old female presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on July 9, 2006, with complaints of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and chills. She had a two-month history of abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, and was diagnosed as having colitis. Patient 27 was admitted to Lee Memorial, had an abdominal scan and was treated with IV infusions. She did not require immediate surgery or any emergency services during the admission. Patient 27 did not receive any emergency services. She was discharged on September 4, 2006. Steve Beiser, M.D., a Board-certified internist credibly testified regarding the following claim: a. Claim (Patient) 13, a 28-year-old male was admitted to Lee Memorial on October 9, 2006, for an elective surgery. Patient 13 underwent an anterior mediastinal germ cell tumor resection and was discharged on October 14, 2006. Patient 13 did not receive any emergency services. Bruce Shephard, M.D., a Board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist, credibly testified regarding the following claim: Claim (Patient) 18, a 23–year-old female, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on March 3, 2006, with complaints of being unable to void or have a bowel movement, abdominal pain, and pelvic pain. She was admitted on March 3, and her EMC presented on March 8, when she underwent surgery. Patient 13 was discharged on March 9. The EMC was alleviated on March 8, 2006. SPECIFIC CLAIMS TO DOAH CASE NO. 15-3271 Dr. Berko credibly testified regarding the following claim: a. Claim (Patient) 7, a 52-year-old male, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on November 30, 2007, with complaints of epigastric pain, anemia and alcohol abuse. During his December 1, 2015, deposition (Petitioner’s Exhibit 21), Dr. Berko testified there was insufficient documentation to properly review the claim. At the hearing, the parties agreed that Respondent was able to provide the medical records. Dr. Berko was able to review the material and render his opinion via a January 23, 2016, Case Detail Report (CDR). Although Respondent did not object to the admission of Petitioner’s Exhibit 66, the CDR which contained Dr. Berko’s peer review is hearsay. There was no direct credible testimony regarding Patient 7, and no finding of fact is made with respect to Patient 7. Dr. Kanarek credibly testified regarding the following claims: Claim (Patient) 4, an eight-year-old female, presented to Lee Memorial with bone pain, fever and a refusal to walk on December 26, 2007. During his January 11, 2016, deposition (Petitioner’s Exhibit 19), Dr. Kanarek testified that there was insufficient documentation to properly review the claim. At the hearing, the parties agreed that Respondent was able to provide the medical records and Dr. Kanarek was able to review the material and render his opinion via a January 21, 2016, CDR. Although Respondent did not object to the admission of Petitioner’s Exhibit 65, the CDR which contained Dr. Kanarek’s peer review is hearsay. There was no direct credible testimony regarding Patient 4, and no finding of fact is made with respect to Patient 4. Claim (Patient) 12, a 17-year-old male, was admitted to Lee Memorial on January 17, 2007, for a mediport placement, bone marrow biopsy on January 18, and the initiation of chemotherapy. (Patient 12 had been diagnosed with undifferentiated sarcoma with metastasis to the lungs.) There was no EMC for Patient 12, but rather a planned hospitalization for his cancer treatment. Following his chemotherapy, Patient 12 was discharged on January 22, 2007. Claim (Patient) 24, a six-year-old Down’s syndrome male with leukemia, was admitted to Lee Memorial on October 11, 2007, with fever and pancytopenia. He was discharged on October 15, 2007, after he had been fever-free for 48 hours on October 14. Dr. Kanarek determined that Patient 24’s EMC was alleviated on October 14. Claim (Patient) 27, a two-year-old male, was presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on August 5, 2007, following a near drowning event which required cardiopulmonary resuscitation. During his January 11, 2016, deposition (Petitioner’s Exhibit 19), Dr. Kanarek testified that there was insufficient documentation to properly review the claim. At the hearing, the parties stipulated that Respondent was able to provide the medical records. Dr. Kanarek was able to review the material and render his opinion via a January 21, 2016, CDR. Although Respondent did not object to the admission of Petitioner’s Exhibit 67, the CDR which contained Dr. Kanarek’s peer review is hearsay. There was no direct credible testimony regarding Patient 27, and no finding of fact is made with respect to Patient 27. Claim (Patient) 40, a seven-year-old male, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on November 26, 2007, with a one- week history of left-sided facial swelling, following a tooth extraction. Although the child had been given oral antibiotics following the tooth extraction, that course of treatment failed, and his facial swelling and pain increased. When hospitalized, Patient 40 was started on IV antibiotics, and by November 28, 2007, his blood culture was negative, he remained afebrile, and his facial swelling had subsided. The EMC was alleviated on November 28, 2007. Patient 40 was discharged on December 10, 2007. Claim (Patient) 44, a 13-year-old male, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on August 13, 2007, with a two and one-half month history of weight loss, increased thirst and urination, and a blood glucose of 534. He was admitted to the hospital, given IV normal saline bolus, started on insulin, and received diabetic instruction. Patient 44 did not present with an EMC; he presented with new onset diabetes. Dr. Kanarek credibly testified that Patient 44 never exhibited any signs of diabetic ketoacidosis, an imminently life-threatening condition, and he never required intensive or emergent care. Patient 44 was discharged on August 17, 2007. Thomas Wells, M.D., a Board-certified surgeon and family practitioner, who engages in emergency medicine, family practice and surgery, credibly testified regarding the following claims: Claim (Patient) 6, a 26-year-old female, was admitted to Lee Memorial on May 14, 2007, for a scheduled gastric cancer surgery. This patient had a medical condition, but there was no evidence that she presented with an EMC. Patient 6 was discharged on May 21, 2007. Claim (Patient) 46, a 20-year-old male, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on June 10, 2007, following a motor vehicle crash. Patient 46 was admitted to the hospital with a traumatic brain injury, bilateral chest trauma, blunt abdominal trauma with liver injury, and multiple bone fractures complicated by cocaine use. His hospital stay was complicated by the surgically repaired wounds opening, and he required additional surgeries. By July 2, 2007, Patient 46’s cardiology workup was completed, his arrhythmia was resolved, his abdominal wound was improving, and he was tolerating food by mouth. Dr. Wells determined that his EMC was alleviated by July 2. Patient 46 was discharged from the hospital on July 7, 2007. Claim (Patient) 50, a 33-year-old male, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on July 13, 2007, with upper quadrant abdominal pain radiating to his back. Patient 50 was admitted and underwent testing protocol. By July 20, 2007, Patient 50’s white blood count had improved, his temperature was improved and his condition was no longer emergent. Dr. Wells determined that the EMC was alleviated on July 20, 2007. Patient 50 was discharged from the hospital on July 21, 2007. Dr. Beiser credibly testified regarding the following claims: Claim (Patient) 9, a 54-year-old male, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room and was admitted on September 4, 2007. Prior to the admission, Patient 9 had been non-compliant with his health care provider’s instructions, and he was told to “go to the ER.” Although he came in through the emergency department, there was no EMC to address, or to be alleviated. Rather, Patient 9 was a non-compliant patient who needed to comply with his physician’s directions. Patient 54 was discharged on September 8, 2007. Claim (Patient) 11, a 33-year-old female, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on April 6, 2007, with a recurrent deep vein thrombosis of her left lower extremity. Her condition was an EMC, and she was admitted. Her physician promptly administered anticoagulation medication and her condition improved, so much so that she was walking well and without chest pain or shortness of breath the following day, April 7. She was discharged on April 9, 2007. Dr. Beiser determined her EMC was alleviated on April 8, 2007. Claim (Patient) 15, a 35–year-old male, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on April 7, 2007, following a motor vehicle accident involving alcohol intoxication. Patient 15 had a left ankle contusion and a closed head injury, which on imaging identified a large brain mass. The mass was determined to be a cyst and no emergent intervention was indicated. The following day, April 8, Patient 15 was alert and oriented with no apparent alcohol withdrawal symptoms. Dr. Beiser determined that his EMC was alleviated on April 8, 2007. Claims 17 and 18 involve the same patient over two different hospitalizations. Patient 17/18, a 51–year-old female, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on September 5, 2007, with complaint of abdominal pain after gastric bypass surgery. She was admitted to the hospital and noted to have ascites, jaundice and diabetes. Patient 17/18 was found to have liver failure and bacterial peritonitis. Dr. Beiser determined that the EMC was alleviated by September 11, when Patient 17/18’s abdominal pain had resolved and there was significant improvement in her overall condition. On October 13, Patient 17/18 again presented to Lee Memorial with complaints of abdominal pain for four days’ duration. She was known to have severe liver disease. Her abdominal pain was suspected to be bacterial peritonitis and this EMC was treated. By October 15, Patient 17/18 was found to be afebrile with no abdominal tenderness. Dr. Beiser determined that the EMC was alleviated on October 15, and the patient was discharged on October 21, 2007. Claim (Patient) 31, a 25-year-old male with a history of meningitis, neurosyphilis and underlying human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on June 14, 2007, with an acute febrile illness and neck mass. He was admitted to the hospital and started on IV antibiotics, and a neck biopsy was performed. Patient 31 had a complicated hospital stay as he had persistent fevers, headaches, episodes of hypotension, and sepsis. Through treatment, his condition improved and he was discharged on July 3, 2007. Dr. Beiser determined that the EMC was alleviated on June 27, 2007. Claims 33 and 34 involve the same patient over two different hospitalizations. Patient 33/34 is a 67-year-old female who presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on May 21, 2007, with an active gastrointestinal bleed and blood loss anemia. She underwent blood transfusions and the anemia was alleviated by May 22. Patient 33/34 was discharged on May 23, 2007. Dr. Beiser determined that the EMC was alleviated on May 22, 2007. Patient 33/34 presented to Lee Memorial on July 5, 2007, with an active gastrointestinal bleed and blood loss anemia. Patient 33/34 underwent blood transfusions and the anemia was alleviated on July 6. Patient 33/34 refused any further medical procedures, and she was discharged on July 8, 2007. Dr. Beiser determined that the EMC was alleviated on July 6, 2007. Claim (Patient) 37, a 27–year-old female, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on October 12, 2007, with complaints of severe abdominal pain. On October 14, her condition was “improved,” and she denied any abdominal pain, nausea or vomiting. Dr. Beiser determined her EMC was alleviated on October 14. Patient 37 was discharged on October 15, 2007. Claim (Patient) 38, a 32-year-old male, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on September 28, 2007, with complaints of excessive thirst and urination, with some slight weight loss and weakness. He was admitted to the hospital for uncontrolled diabetes. Although Dr. Beiser determined that uncontrolled diabetes is not an EMC, Patient 38’s records demonstrated that he had diabetic ketoacidosis, which is an EMC. With insulin, Patient 38’s EMC was alleviated on September 29, 2007. He was discharged on October 1, 2007. Claim (Patient) 49, a 33-year-old male, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on April 30, 2007, with complaints of right mid-lower quadrant abdominal pain with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea for two days prior to presentation. Patient 49 was admitted to rule out appendicitis. Patient 49 was taken to surgery on May 2, 2007, where an appendectomy was successfully performed. He had an uneventful recovery, and Dr. Beiser determined that the EMC was alleviated on May 2, 2007. Patient 49 was discharged on May 4, 2007. Dr. Shephard credibly testified regarding the following claim: a. Claim (Patient) 36, an 18-year–old female, presented to, and was admitted to Lee Memorial on July 14, 2007, at 31 weeks gestation with a heart condition and mild pre-eclampsia. Her medical condition became emergent on July 26, when she experienced congestive heart failure and decreased oxygen levels. She was transferred to the intensive care unit, and she delivered by emergency C-section on July 28, 2007. Patient 36 was extubated on July 29, and her cardiopulmonary status continued to improve. She was discharged on August 3, 2007. Dr. Shephard determined that Patient 36’s EMC started on July 26 and was alleviated on August 2, 2007. RECOUPMENT OF MEDICAID OVERPAYMENTS Based upon the foregoing findings, and the persuasive weight of the evidence presented by the parties, it is determined: As to Patient 3, EMC was not required for this patient subsequent to December 9, 2006; As to Patient 4, EMC was not required for this patient subsequent to December 8, 2006; As to Patient 21, EMC was not required for this patient subsequent to July 25, 2006; As to Patient 5, EMC was not required for this patient subsequent to April 12, 2006; As to Patient 8, none of this patient’s care was required as emergency medical care; As to Patient 11, none of this patient’s care was required as emergency medical care; As to Patient 27, none of this patient’s care was required as emergency medical care; As to Patient 13, none of this patient’s care was required as emergency medical care; As to Patient 18, although admitted on March 3, 2006, the EMC presented on March 8, and Patient 13 was discharged on March 9, 2006; (The following patients were seen in 2007.) As to Patient 7, no finding of fact was made with respect to the care provided; As to Patient 4, no finding of fact was made with respect to the care provided; As to Patient 12, none of this patient’s care was required as emergency medical care; As to Patient 24, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to October 14, 2007; As to Patient 27, no finding of fact was made with respect to the care provided; As to Patient 40, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to November 28, 2007; As to Patient 44, none of this patient’s care was required as emergency medical care; As to Patient 6, none of this patient’s care was required as emergency medical care; As to Patient 46, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to July 2, 2007; As to Patient 50, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to July 20, 2007; As to Patient 11, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to April 8, 2007; As to Patient 15, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to April 9, 2007; As to Patient 17, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to September 11, 2007; As to Patient 18, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to October 15, 2007; As to Patient 33, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to May 22, 2007; As to Patient 34, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to July 6, 2007; As to Patient 37, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to October 14, 2007; AA. As to Patient 38, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to September 29, 2007; BB. As to Patient 49, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to May 2, 2007; CC. As to Patient 36, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to August 2, 2007. With respect to both DOAH case numbers, Respondent offered no testimony or evidence to dispute or rebut the testimony on any of the claims presented above. Each expert credibly testified as to when each EMC presented and the date on which each EMC was alleviated. The experts provided the requisite support to both the AFAR and FAR.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order sustaining the Medicaid overpayment in DOAH Case No. 14-4171 as $57,337.71, plus sanctions of $2,500, and costs of $2,062.04. With respect to DOAH Case No. 15-3271, the amount due should be recalculated based on only those claims that were found to be overpayments,9/ and costs of $3,528.41. Based on the oral stipulation announced at the hearing (found on Transcript, page 106), AHCA “remove[d] the claim for sanctions as to the 2007 case[s].” DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 27th day of April, 2016
The Issue Whether the Petitioner was overpaid for Medicaid prescriptions. The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA, Agency or Respondent) asserts the Petitioner, Compscript, Inc., d/b/a Compscript (Petitioner or Compscript) failed to maintain proper records to support and document the Medicaid prescription claims paid by the Agency for the audit period. According to the Agency, the audit findings must be extrapolated to the universe of all claims for the audit period. If so, the Agency maintains the Petitioner should reimburse AHCA for a Medicaid overpayment in the amount of $216,974.07 (this is the “recoupment” amount). The Petitioner denies it was overpaid any amount, asserts it kept records in accordance with applicable laws and regulations governing pharmacy records, and maintains that the Agency may not apply the extrapolation accounting procedure in this case.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Petitioner was a licensed pharmacy authorized to do business in the State of Florida; its pharmacy license number is PH0016271. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Petitioner was authorized to provide Medicaid prescriptions pursuant to a provider agreement with the Respondent. The Petitioner’s Medicaid provider number is 106629300. The terms of the provider agreement govern the contractual relationship between this provider and the Agency. The parties do not dispute that the provider agreement together with the pertinent laws or regulations controls the relationship between the provider and the Agency. The provider agreement pertinent to this case is a voluntary agreement between AHCA and the Petitioner. Pursuant to the provider agreement, the Petitioner was to “keep, maintain, and make available in a systematic and orderly manner all medical and Medicaid-related records as AHCA requires for a period of at least five (5) years.” In addition to the foregoing, a Medicaid provider must maintain a patient record for each recipient for whom new or refill prescriptions are dispensed. Any Medicaid providers not in compliance with the Medicaid documentation and record retention policies may be subject to the recoupment of Medicaid payments. A Medicaid provider must retain all medical, fiscal, professional, and business records on all services provided to a Medicaid recipient. The records may be kept on paper, magnetic material, film, or other media. However, in order to qualify for reimbursement, the records must be signed and dated at the time of service, or otherwise attested to as appropriate to the media. Rubber stamp signatures must be initialed. The records must be accessible, legible and comprehensive. Specific to the issues of this case, a Medicaid provider must also retain prescription records for five years. The Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility and authority to administer the Medicaid program in Florida. Pursuant to this authority AHCA conducts audits to assure compliance with the Medicaid provisions and provider agreements. These “integrity” audits are routinely performed and Medicaid providers are aware that they may be audited. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Medicaid program in Florida was governed by a “pay and chase” procedure. Under this procedure, the Agency paid Medicaid claims submitted by Medicaid providers and then, after-the-fact, audited such providers for accuracy and quality control. These “integrity” audits are to assure that the provider maintains records to support the paid claims. In this case, the audit period is May 28, 1999 through July 18, 2000. The pertinent audit has been designated AHCA audit no. 01-0514-000-3/H/KNH and was initiated on October 23, 2000. The Petitioner does not dispute the Agency’s authority to perform audits such as the one at issue. The Petitioner maintains its records are sufficient to support the paid claims and that the Agency has unreasonably imposed its interpretation of the requirements. The Medicaid provider agreement that governs this case required that the Petitioner comply with all Medicaid handbooks in effect during the audit period. Essentially, this standard dictates the records that must be kept for quality control so that the after-the-fact audit can verify the integrity of the Medicaid claims that were paid by the Agency. During the audit period the Petitioner sold or dispensed drugs to Medicaid recipients. Equally undisputed is the fact that Medicaid claims were paid by the Agency during the audit period. Each claim reviewed and at issue in this cause was a paid Medicaid claim subject to the Petitioner’s provider agreement and the pertinent regulations. The Agency required that each and every claim submitted by the Petitioner during the audit period under the Medicaid program be filed electronically. Each claim submitted was filed electronically. Nevertheless, the Agency also required the Petitioner to retain records supporting the claim. Additionally, the Petitioner was to make such supporting records available to the Agency upon request. The Agency asked the Petitioner to present its records to support the claims for the audit period. The disclosure of the records proved difficult for this Medicaid provider because it does not operate in a conventional pharmacy setting. More specifically, it operates solely to serve a nursing home population. All of the patients whose prescriptions were filled were nursing home residents. Compscript maintains its manner of doing business is slightly different from the conventional pharmacy. Rather than the walk-in patient who presents a written prescription to be filled, this Petitioner receives its pharmacy orders by telephone or facsimile transmission from nursing homes. Typically, the staff at Compscript takes the call, writes down the pertinent information, enters the data into the pharmacy’s computer system, and the item is dispensed and routed to the nursing home via the delivery driver. All drugs are dispensed in sealed containers and are delivered with a manifest listing all the medications by name and patient. Given the volume of prescriptions being prepared and delivered, for the audit period at issue in this case, the Petitioner made 2-3 trips to the nursing home per day. Once the information for the prescription was entered into the Petitioner’s computer system, Compscript had little interest in maintaining the written telephone message or the facsimile sheet that generated the request. In some instances the Compscript employee did not make a written record of the prescription request. In those instances the employee entered the request directly into the Petitioner’s computer system and bypassed the written step altogether. The Compscript computer system tracks the initials of the pharmacist who entered the prescription information and cannot be altered without such alteration being tracked and noted. Since the pharmacy fills “over the counter” items, as well as controlled and non-controlled pharmacy products, the computer record denotes that information along with the patient information. When the Respondent’s audit agents went into the Compscript facility to audit the Medicaid claims, the Petitioner could not readily produce the written documentation to support the dispensed drugs. In fact, many of the records that verified the prescriptions dispensed were found on the nursing home records. The nursing home patient’s physician order sheet specified the item or items requested for the patient. This “physician order sheet” (POS) should theoretically always support the dispensing of the product from the Petitioner. In this case there were instances when the POS did not corroborate the claim. When the auditors from the Agency presented at Compscript, the Petitioner did not have the POS records to produce. Obviously, those records were maintained within the nursing home. Additionally, Compscript did not have the telephone notes or the facsimile transmission sheets to support items dispensed during the audit period. When the hearing in this cause proceeded it was also discovered that records that were generated daily by the Petitioner’s computer system that would have corroborated the claims (and which were allegedly maintained in storage) were not produced or available to support Medicaid claims submitted during the audit period. During the audit the Agency’s auditors requested records from a random sample of the claims submitted during the audit period. The results from that sample where then applied to the universe of claims for the audit period. When this mathematical calculation was performed the audit produced a Medicaid overpayment in the amount of $1,341,466.27. Afterwards, when the Petitioner was able to locate additional records to correspond to and support the prescriptions dispensed, the amount of overpayment was reduced to $217,715.28 (the amount set forth in the parties’ Pre-hearing Stipulation). At hearing, the Agency maintained that the amount of overpayment was $216,974.07 for which the Petitioner could produce no adequate documentation. At hearing, the Petitioner continued to dispute the procedure of applying the audit sample overpayment to the population of claims to mathematically compute the overpayment for the audit period. This “extrapolation” process was admitted into evidence and has been fully considered in the findings reached in this case. The Petitioner was required to maintain Medicaid- related records for a period of 5 years. Thus, for the audit period in this case, any record supporting the claims should have been maintained and made available for the Agency. Such records would have been within the five-year period. The Agency designates Medicaid compliance to its office of Medicaid Program Integrity. In turn, that office contracted with Heritage Information Systems, Inc. (Heritage) to perform and report pharmacy audits of the numerous pharmacy providers within the state. Auditors from Heritage were assigned the Compscript audit. At the time of the audit the Heritage auditors were not privy to any of the POS documents later produced in the case. Ken Yon is the Agency’s administrator who was responsible for managing the instant case and who worked with the Heritage auditors to assure the policies and practices of the Agency were met. In this case, the Heritage auditors presented at Compscript unannounced on October 23, 2000, and sought 250 randomly selected claims for review. By limiting the number of claims, the auditors were not required to sift through the records of 46,000+ claims (the approximate number of claims that the Petitioner submitted during the audit period). For the universe of 46,000+ claims, 250 randomly selected claims is a reasonable sample to audit. The adequacy of the sample number as well as the manner in which it was generated is supported by the weight of credible evidence presented in this matter. Also, the results of a sample of 250 from the universe of 46,000+ would be statistically valid if randomly chosen as they were in this case. In this regard the testimony of Dr. Mark Johnson, an expert in statistical sampling and analysis, has been deemed credible and persuasive as to the issues of the appropriateness of the sample (as to size and how it was generated), the use of the sample overpayment to calculate an overall payment, and the statistical trustworthiness of the amounts claimed in this cause. If anything, as Dr. Johnson asserted, the actual overpayment would be greater than the recoupment amount sought by the Agency. The Agency has used a statistical extrapolation method to compute overpayments for years. The statistical concept and process of applying a sample to a universe to mathematically compute an overpayment is not novel to this case. After the auditors completed their review of the records at the Compscript pharmacy, Kathryn Holland, a licensed pharmacist (who is also a consulting pharmacist) prepared the Respondent’s Final Agency Audit Report. Prior to completing the report, Ms. Holland received and reviewed the information provided by the Petitioner through the auditors. As a result of the review, a number of “can’t find” conclusions were reached. By “can’t find” the auditors and Ms. Holland meant that the original prescription or refill documentation could not be located for the paid Medicaid claim. These “can’t find” claims were reported to the Petitioner, who was given additional time to locate and produce documents to support the claims. In fact, the Agency continued to accept documentation for claims up through the time of hearing. Consequently, the amount sought for overpayment has been substantially reduced. Whether the Agency had the authority to accept documents outside the prescription records maintained by the pharmacy is not an issue. In fact, the Agency did reduce the overpayment amount when subsequent supporting documents were located. A second error in the documentation for the Petitioner’s prescriptions was noted as “no doctor’s address on the prescription.” That expression meant that pursuant to state and federal law the physician’s address is required for a controlled substance and when it was not provided the auditor deemed the documentation incomplete. Although the Petitioner maintained doctor addresses in its computer system, the records did not correspond to the specific prescriptions that were filled for the audited claims. In order to stand as a sufficient prescription form, a writing must be created contemporaneous to the order (phone requests that are transcribed are acceptable), must contain specific information (type of drug, strength, dose, patient, doctor, DEA number, refill, etc.), and it must be kept for the requisite time. It would be acceptable for the prescription to be computer generated so long as it was written contemporaneous to the order and preserved as required by law. In this case, at the conclusion of the audit, the Agency identified 194 discrepant claims within the random sample of 250. The vast majority of those discrepancies were noted as “can’t find.” Had the Agency not accepted other documentation to support the dispensing of the drugs, the calculated overpayment would have been $1,575,707.44. Applying a lower confidence limit of 95 percent to that amount generated the calculated overpayment of $1,341,466.27. The audit findings set forth in the Agency’s Final Agency Audit Report (dated April 6, 2001) is supported by the weight of credible evidence in this case. Nevertheless, the Agency did allow the provider here to supplement the documentation disclosed during the audit. And, to that end, the calculated overpayment was reduced to $216,974.07 (this amount is 95% of the calculated overpayment). In reality, the amount owed by this Petitioner for failure to maintain proper documentation for this audit would be greater than the recoupment amount sought by the Agency. Had the Agency held the Petitioner to a standard of “no prescription, no payment” standard arguably 194 of the 250 audited claims could have been disallowed. That is not the standard applied by the Agency. A “patient record” may include information regarding the patient’s prescription history. The terms “patient record” and “prescription” are not synonymous. For example, while a prescription would contain information such as patient's name, doctor, DEA number, doctor's address, dosage, drug, and whether it may be refilled, it would be expected that the “patient record” would contain additional information not typically found on a prescription. For instance, a “patient record” might contain a historical track of past medications or known patient allergies. In this case, the computer records or “patient records” maintained by the Petitioner did not retain the prescriptions in the format dictated by rule. An electronic imaging recording system may be used when the system captures, stores, and can reproduce the exact image of the prescription, including the reverse side of the prescription if necessary. The Petitioner’s system did not do that. An electronic system must be able to produce a daily hard-copy printout of all original prescriptions dispensed and refilled. If the Petitioner’s system could do that, it did not. An acceptable electronic system must generate the prescription contemporaneous to the dispensing order. The Petitioner’s system did not do that. The Agency has not alleged, and there is no evidence to suggest, fraud in the Petitioner’s failure to maintain its records. The Agency’s interpretation of the requirement that a prescription be reduced to writing is consistent with the rules and regulations in effect at the time of this audit. The last category of discrepant items was “UR” which stood for “unauthorized refills.” These were claims for refills on drugs for which the original prescription could not be located or documentation from the nursing home could not be found. Again, the Petitioner the maintained that within the nursing home setting a physician’s reorder for medications for the patient could be found on the POS. These refill requests were handled orally among the physician, the nursing home staff, and the pharmacy. Nevertheless, because they were not documented in writing the Agency disallowed this claims and included them among the discrepant list. If the Petitioner was able to produce a physician order to support the UR claims, it was removed from the recoupment list. In most instances, the Petitioner did not have the requisite paperwork to support the refill. Instead, the Petitioner relied on its computer records (again not kept in accordance with the applicable standards) to support the UR claims. The Agency has not claimed that the refills were not dispensed, merely that the paperwork to support the claim cannot be produced.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order that accepts an amended Final Agency Action Report to support an overpayment and recoupment against the Petitioner in the amount of $216,974.07. S DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 L. William Porter, II, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Executive Center III 2727 Mahan Drive, Building 3, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Kenneth W. Sukhia, Esquire Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1090 Post Office Box 11240 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ralph E. Breitfeller, Esquire McGrath & Breitfeller, LLP 140 East Town Street, Suite 1070 Columbus, Ohio 43215
The Issue Whether an administrative fine should be imposed on the respondent for the violations alleged in Final Agency Audit Report number 94-0367-000-G, and, if so, the appropriate amount of the fine.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Agency for Health Care Administration is the state agency responsible for administering the Medicaid program in Florida. Ch. 93-129, 58, Laws of Fla. (1993). The Agency oversees the activities of Medicaid providers and is authorized in section 409.913(9), Florida Statutes, to impose sanctions for violations of the Medicaid rules and regulations. The division of the Agency responsible for monitoring payments to Medicaid providers is referred to as Medicaid Program Integrity, which is part of the Agency's Office of the Inspector General. Medicaid payments are monitored to ensure that such payments are made in accordance with federal and state rules and regulations. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the respondent was licensed to practice medicine in Florida and was an approved Medicaid treating provider assigned Treating Provider number 065767102. The respondent entered into a Noninstitutional Professional and Technical Medicaid Provider Agreement on October 14, 1981, in which he agreed to "abide by the provisions of the Florida Administrative Rules, Florida Statutes, policies, procedures, manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program and Federal laws and regulations," as provided in paragraph 7 of the agreement. The Medicaid Physician Provider Handbook provides in the introduction to section 11.1 that "[t]he services in this program must be performed for medical necessity for diagnosis and treatment of an illness for an eligible Medicaid recipient." The provider agreement also requires in paragraph 2 that the provider "keep such records as are necessary to fully disclose the extent of services provided to individuals receiving assistance under the State Plan." The Agency audited a random sample of medical records of Medicaid recipients for whom payments were made to Dade Health Services for medical services provided from August 3, 1992 through October 31, 1993. The respondent's name appeared frequently in these records as a treating provider. As a result, the Agency extended its investigation to the respondent. The respondent provided medical services at Dade Health Services from the beginning of the audit period until February 9, 1993, when he terminated his association with the clinic. The medical records of seven Medicaid recipients treated by the respondent were among the Dade Health Services's medical records audited by the Agency. In order to ensure that the Agency had all the medical records relevant to these patients, a letter was sent to the respondent requesting any additional medical records he might have in his possession. The respondent notified the Agency through his attorney that he did not have any medical records relating to the seven patients. The medical records of the seven Medicaid recipients treated by the respondent were reviewed by Dr. John Sullenberger, Chief Medical Consultant for the State of Florida Medicaid Group, to determine if the services provided and billed to Medicaid were medically necessary. Dr. Sullenberger evaluated the medical records in accordance with generally-accepted practices and using generally-accepted tools such as the Current Physician Terminology Handbook. He concluded that certain of the tests and treatments ordered by the respondent were not medically necessary Patient Q.M. was seen by the respondent in an office visit on September 16, 1992. The patient's main complaint was shortness of breath. The respondent ordered spirometry, a test which measures lung function. Shortness of breath can have many causes, among them heart problems. There is no indication in the medical records that a chest x-ray was taken, and nothing in the records supports the medical necessity for a test measuring lung function for shortness of breath alone. Patient J.U. was seen by the respondent in an office visit on January 30, 1993. The patient complained of a dry cough and shortness of breath. The respondent noted that the patient wheezed when he blew air out of his lungs, and he ordered spirometry. Spirometry is contraindicated for wheezing, and there is nothing in the records to support the medical necessity for the test for shortness of breath alone. Patient M.V. was treated on November 11, 13, 16, 18, 20, 23, 25, 27, and 29, 1992, and on December 2 and 7, 1992, with aerosol treatments ordered by the respondent. An aerosol treatment consists of the patient's breathing in a vaporized mist to moisten the nose and the bronchial tubes, and it provides relief for approximately three hours. Aerosol treatments are properly administered every four to six hours, usually to patients who are hospitalized. There is nothing in M.V.'s medical records to support the medical necessity for aerosol treatments, and there is no medical justification for administering these tests every two to three days. Patient D.S. was seen by the respondent in an office visit on January 23, 1993. The medical record of this visit is largely illegible, but it appears that the patient's main complaint was a cough. The respondent ordered spirometry, an electrocardiogram, and radiologic testing. There is nothing in the medical records to support the medical necessity for spirometry, especially since the respondent noted in the records that an examination of the lungs showed that they were within normal limits. There was no legible entry in the medical records to support the medical necessity for an electrocardiogram, which measures, among other things, the rhythm of the heart beat, the rate of the beat, and any blockage of blood passing through the heart. The radiologic testing consisted of a chest x-ray, but there is nothing in the medical records to support the medical necessity for this test. Patient E.R. was seen by the respondent in an office visit on November 2, 1992. The entry in the medical records of this visit for the patient's chief complaint is illegible. The respondent ordered two non-invasive tests, one to measure the blood flow through the arteries of the patient's legs and one to measure the blood flow through the veins of the legs. The respondent also ordered echography to test the patient's peripheral vascular system. Echography uses sound waves to construct a picture or photographic plate of the area being tested. There is no indication in the medical records that the respondent observed any abnormality of the patient's legs or feet or that he took the pulse in the feet to determine if the tests were necessary. The two non- invasive tests and the echography were not justified as medically necessary by the information contained in the medical record of E.R.'s November 2 office visit. Patient E.R. was also seen by the respondent in an office visit on December 19, 1992. The respondent ordered a duplex scan, which is a sonogram of the arteries in the neck that go to the brain. It is unusual to perform such a test on a 45-year-old woman, and there is nothing in the medical records to support the medical necessity for this test. Based on his examination of patient E.R. on December 19, the respondent also ordered aerosol treatments, which were administered on December 21, 23, 26, 28, and 30, 1992, and on January 4, 1993. There is nothing in the medical records to support the medical necessity for aerosol treatments, and there is no medical justification for administering the treatments every two to five days. Patient W.L. was seen by the respondent in an office visit on November 23, 1992. The patient's chief complaint was pain in the legs. There is nothing in the medical records indicating that the respondent examined the patient's legs or took the pulses in the feet, behind the knees, or in the groin. Nevertheless, the respondent diagnosed the patient as having peripheral vascular disease and ordered two non-invasive tests and echography of the peripheral vascular system. There is nothing in the medical record to support a diagnosis of peripheral vascular disease or the medical necessity for the three tests. Patient A.A. was seen by the respondent in an office visit on October 19, 1992. The patient's chief complaint was hemorrhoids, and the respondent noted in the medical records that the patient's lungs were clear. Nevertheless, he ordered aerosol treatments, which were administered October 19, 21, 22, 23, 26, 28, and 30, 1992, and November 2, 4, 6, and 9, 1992. There is nothing in the medical records to support the medical necessity for these treatments, and there is no medical justification for administering the treatments on the prescribed schedule. The evidence is clear and convincing that the respondent administered or ordered administered forty-seven tests and treatments for these seven Medicaid recipients, that Medicaid claims were submitted for these tests and treatments, and that no medical necessity was shown in their respective medical records for these tests and treatments.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order finding that, from August 3, 1992, until February 9, 1993, Jaime Vergel, M.D., committed forty-seven violations of Medicaid rules and regulations and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $25,000. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of November 1995. PATRICIA HART MALONO, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November 1995.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is liable for overpayment of Medicaid claims for the period of January 1, 2001, through January 1, 2003, as stated in Respondent's Final Agency Audit Report dated October 26, 2004, in violation of Sections 409.907 and/or 409.913, Florida Statutes (2002), and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulations of the parties and the evidence presented at the hearing, the following relevant Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is the state agency charged with the regulation of the Medicaid program in the State of Florida and has the authority to perform Medicaid audits and collect overpayments, pursuant to Section 409.913, Florida Statutes (2002). Petitioner is a Florida-licensed physician and an authorized Medicaid provider. He was paid by Medicaid for providing services to Medicaid patients during the Audit Period of calendar years 2001 and 2002. Blanca Notman, R.N., Medicaid health care analyst in Respondent's Medicaid Program Integrity Unit, conducted the audit of Petitioner's Medicaid billing during the Audit Period. Respondent's audit involved a review of services Petitioner provided during the Audit Period of 30 randomly chosen Medicaid patients. Upon completion of the audit, Respondent alleged that during the Audit Period, Petitioner violated Medicaid policy and law in that: (1) some services for which Petitioner billed and received payment were not documented; (2) the documentation/medical records Petitioner provided to Respondent support a lower level of office or hospital visit than the one for which Petitioner billed and received payment; (3) Petitioner billed for radiology services when a radiologist outside of the office/group previously billed the reading and interpretation; and (4) Petitioner's records indicate instances of double- billing Medicaid for services by using two CPT codes when one of these codes incorporates the elements of the other. With respect to each of the services reviewed, Respondent relied upon the opinion of its expert, Dr. Averbuch, as to whether or not Petitioner billed Medicaid correctly. Dr. Averbuch based his opinion on a review of documents regarding each service which were provided to him by Respondent. Respondent did not establish that the records provided to Dr. Averbuch were complete, and in several instances, the records reviewed by Dr. Averbuch were incomplete. The most common difference of opinion between what was billed by Petitioner for each service and what Dr. Averbuch felt should have been billed, involved the "level of service." Billing codes are five-digit numbers, the last digit denoting the degree of difficulty of the service. Generally, there are five "levels of service," with "1" being the least difficult and "5" being the most difficult. There are general guidelines for establishing the "level of service" (or degree of difficulty) which are set forth in documents such as Documentation Guidelines for Evaluation and Management Services, published by the American Medical Association. However, the correct coding can only be established through expert testimony, which is based upon established and identified criteria. With respect to each of the 30 patients being reviewed, Respondent prepared a worksheet listing each service provided by Petitioner for that patient during the two-year Audit Period, the code and amount billed for each of those services, and Dr. Averbuch's opinion of the code which he felt should have been billed. Dr. Averbuch testified that in his opinion, Petitioner's claims contained an inordinate number of level "4" and "5" claims and that his records did not support the level of coding billed to Respondent. Someone on Respondent's staff then filled in the purported dollar value for each adjusted code. That amount was subtracted from the amount originally billed by Petitioner, and an average error (dollar amount) for each sample claim was calculated. Respondent then applied the average error in the sample claims to all the claims during the Audit Period. A further statistical calculation was performed to arrive at a 95 percent confidence level which Respondent alleged to be the amount of overpayment it was seeking from Respondent. That amount was shown as $81,682.06.1/ Dr. Averbuch is a knowledgeable medical practitioner, who specializes in orthopedic surgery. Respondent did not establish what records he reviewed, where they came from, or that they were complete. Additionally, Dr. Averbuch's deposition testimony did not set forth much information regarding the reason he felt as he did when his opinion differed from that of Petitioner. Also, Respondent did not establish what criteria Dr. Averbuch relied upon in arriving at his opinion. Jeffrey Howard, a consultant for Petitioner, although not a physician or other health care provider, is an experienced CPT code reviewer. He testified at length about each billing code in which he disagreed with Dr. Averbuch. In his testimony, he included details about each patient and each billed service. He also testified that he relied upon the 1995 Documentation Guidelines for Evaluation and Management Services, which has been adopted by HCFA, to base his opinions. Howard did not support all of Petitioner's billings. There are 40 instances in which Petitioner challenges the billing codes urged by Respondent. This is a substantial proportion of the billing codes which were in dispute. There are eight billing codes, the values of which need to be established to calculate the overpayment in this case. Those codes are: 99204, 99213, 99214, 99243, 99244, 99245, 29876, and 76140. In carefully reviewing each of the joint exhibits admitted in this case, the dollar amount for code 99204 was established by the worksheet on Patients 10 and 30, to be $68.74. The dollar amount for code 99213 is a variable amount. In January 2001 through April 3, 2001, it is $26.29 (Patients 2, 24, and 4). The amount goes up to $31.31 (Patient 21) in June and July 2001, then returns to $26.29 in August and September for Patients 13 and 7. Once again, the amount goes up to $31.31 in October 2001 (Patient 29), before backing down to $26.47, where it remains until March 5, 2002, when it once again goes to $31.31 (Patients 2, 14, and 6). On April 23, 2002, the dollar value for code 99213 returns to $26.47, where it stays for the rest of the Audit Period, except for June 21, 2002, when it changes to $31.31 for Patient 21. The dollar amount for code 99214 seems to fluctuate even more than code 99213. It is valued at anywhere from $39.03 (Patients 24, 13, and 7) to $48.27 (Patients 16, 17, 9, and 11) and at least four values in between. It changes 13 times, both up and down, during the two-year Audit Period. The dollar amount for code 99243 fluctuates between $62.11 and $64.28, with the majority approved at $64.28. The dollar amount of code 99244 is not reflected anywhere in the record. The dollar amount for code 99245 fluctuates in an apparently random fashion between $112.18 and $122.84, with three values in between. The dollar amount for code 29876 is $121.00, according to the worksheet for Patient 2. The dollar amount for code 76140 is not reflected anywhere in the record. Because of the seemingly random variation in the dollar amounts for codes 99213, 99214, 99243, and 99245, which were not explained and could be the result of clerical error, it is found that Petitioner shall be given credit for the highest dollar amount for each of those three codes that are reflected in the record, that is: 99213 + $31.31; 99214 + $48.27; 99243 + $64.28; and 99245 + $122.84, unless those amounts are greater than that originally billed by Petitioner, in which case he shall be given credit for the amount billed. Since there is nothing in the record to establish the value of code 99244, it is found that Petitioner shall be given credit for the value of the next higher level of service (code 99245), which is valued at $122.84 or any lesser amount which was originally billed. Since there is nothing in the record to establish the value of code 76140, it is found that Petitioner shall be given credit for the value of the service as he originally billed it at $42.81 [Patient 24, Date of Service [DOS] January 7, 2002, code 72148]. Patient 1 was a 64-year-old woman that was referred to Petitioner and presented with numbness and pain in the right hand and wrist. The patient had a stroke in 1994 on her left side and had numbness and tingling in the right upper extremity. The patient had been referred by a neurologist, Dr. Jeronimo, who had performed an electromyography and nerve conduction studies. The symptoms indicated carpal tunnel syndrome. The patient had not received treatment for this condition and was, at the time of the visit, on nine different medications. The fact of a prior cerebral vascular accident and the multitude of medications added complexity to this case. Petitioner recommended surgery, but the patient requested alternatives. The patient was placed in a splint and instructed on home therapies. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code should be 99244, and Petitioner shall receive credit for $116.12 for DOS October 15, 2002, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $13.04. Patient 2 was a 24-year-old woman who saw Petitioner for the first time in 2001. The patient had injured her knee in 1998 and was not treated by an orthopedist. The patient had pain in the right knee, and it popped and moved in a funny way. She had difficulty ambulating. Petitioner reviewed the patient's history, examined the patient, and X-rays were taken. Petitioner's impression was a torn medial meniscus, which had been left untreated for three years. Petitioner counseled the patient about further diagnostic work, but the patient opted for surgery. Petitioner performed and billed two separate procedures, arthroscopy knee surgical synovectomy (code 29876) and arthroscopy knee surgical meniscusectomy (code 29880). Dr. Averbuch testified that this was "unbundling," but Howard explained how it was not according to the National Correct Coding Edits. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that Petitioner should receive credit for $115.18 for DOS January 4, 2001, code 99244; and $121.00 for DOS January 19, 2001, code 29876, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $61.50. Patient 3 was a 37-year-old female with chronic back pain for several years. She had been previously treated with various treatments without relief. The patient was on Social Security disability because of her condition. The patient was upset and crying during her visit to Petitioner on July 3, 2001, because of her back pain. Recently, the patient reported the pain had been getting worse. The patient did not bring any previous medical records with her. Petitioner observed that she was limited in her motion. Petitioner based his diagnosis solely upon his physical examination and discussion with the patient. Because of the nature of her injury, this was a highly complex patient. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code should be 99244, and Petitioner should receive credit for $113.18 for DOS July 3, 2001, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to zero. Patient 4 was seen by Petitioner five years prior to the visit of April 3, 2001. The patient presented with swelling and pain in the right elbow. She had recently experienced soreness and redness in the area of the right elbow. She had been seen at a diagnostic center where she had been X-rayed, but was not treated other than she was advised to take Ibuprofen. The patient had not improved. The patient had also experienced a severe sprain of her knee in the past, but was allergic to codeine. Petitioner reviewed her past medical history and gave her an examination. The bursitis appeared to be resolving. The patient was counseled to come back if she had any more swelling and that she might need an aspiration. This patient was complex due to insufficient history and past treatment. Since the patient had not been seen in over three years, she was considered a "new patient" per the CPT guidelines. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code should be 99204 for DOS April 3, 2001, and Petitioner should receive credit for $68.74 (the value of code 99204 as established by Patients 10 and 30), thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $15.48. Patient 5 was a new patient, who was referred by Dr. Cosic. She was a 13-year-old female who had been having pain in her right knee for two years. She had not seen any other physician for this problem. In 1995, the patient had been struck by a vehicle and sustained some damage. Petitioner reviewed the patient's history and examined the patient. He took an X-ray, which showed a possible tumor. This is a complex case. Dr. Averbuch recognized in his deposition that this patient had been referred by another physician, yet he opined that the proper coding should not be for a referral. The greater weight of evidence demonstrated that Petitioner should receive credit for $115.18 for DOS June 19, 2001, because the correct code is 99245, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to zero. Patient 6 was a 17-year-old male who injured his hand when he struck a telephone pole. The majority of the pain was on the fifth metacarpal. Petitioner reviewed the patient's history and examined the patient. Tenderness was found on the border of the hand, which localized the ulna aspect, and X-rays were taken. The patient was given a short-arm cast and aluminum splint for his little finger. The age of this patient contributed to the complexity of this case. The greater weight of evidence shows that the correct code should be 99244, and Petitioner should receive credit for $118.12 for DOS February 12, 2002, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $15.11. Patient 7 was a 59-year-old female with pain in her right shoulder for four months. The patient was seen by another physician, Dr. Lynch, who referred her to Petitioner. The patient had difficulty raising her arms and sleeping. She had pain all over the subacromial clavicle region of the shoulder. She denied any trauma. Unexplained pain increases the complexity of a case. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code should be 99244, and Petitioner should receive credit for $113.18 for DOS August 20, 2001, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $12.74. Patient 8 had a chief complaint of pain in the right knee. She was a 73-year-old female from Sulfur Springs (over an hour's drive away from Petitioner's office), who had been having problems for three months with her right knee. It resulted from an injury when she slipped and fell at home. The pain was on the medial side of the knee. She had seen a physician in Sebring and received an MRI. The MRI revealed a tear in the posterior medial meniscus. She was referred to Petitioner, who reviewed the history and performed an examination. His impression was a torn medial meniscus, and the plan was for arthroscopic surgery. Although Petitioner initially agreed with the lower code, the need for surgery added to the complexity of this case. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code should be 99244, and Petitioner should receive credit for $116.12 for DOS July 1, 2002, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $15.97. Patient 9 was a 13-year-old male with pain in his right hand, who saw Petitioner on February 15, 2001. He had fallen off his bicycle and had abrasions on this right hand. The patient had been seen at another facility where he was X-rayed and received a splint. Due to pain, the patient had removed the splint. Petitioner reviewed the patient's history and examined the patient. He took X-rays, which demonstrated a fracture of the second metacarpal of the distal limb. The patient was treated with an aluminum splint. Although Petitioner initially agreed with the lower code, due to the previous treatment which did not work, this was a relatively complex case. On the May 28, 2002, visit, Patient 9 had an injured left ankle, again from a bicycle accident, five days prior. The patient had difficulty walking. He had received a splint at another facility. There was tenderness over the anterior lateral aspect of the ankle, and X-rays were taken. The complexity of this patient was influenced by the patient's Tourette's Syndrome and his Attention Deficit Disorder. The patient was changed from a splint to a hand-walker. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS February 15, 2001, should be 99244, and Petitioner should receive credit for $115.18. For DOS May 28, 2002, the correct code should be 99214, and Petitioner should be given credit for $8.27, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $36.90. Patient 10 was a referral from Dr. Madedes of Suncoast Community Center, Inc. The patient was diagnosed as a "classic gamekeepers thumb." The correct code should be 99243. Therefore, Petitioner should not be given any credit for DOS December 5, 2002. Patient 11 was a referral from the Nativity Clinic. He was a 13-year-old male who had fallen off his bicycle approximately 31 days previously. He was diagnosed with a fracture and was treated without a reduction. He had been placed in a cast. Petitioner reviewed the medical history and performed an examination. Petitioner checked the patient's range of motion and took X-rays. Petitioner diagnosed a fracture of the left distal radius. He told the patient to return in two weeks for removal of the cast. A complicating factor in this case is that the patient also had back pain. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code should be 99244, and Petitioner should receive credit for $122.84 for DOS July 21, 2002, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $21.80. Patient 12 was a 37-year-old female from Avon Park who was referred to Petitioner by another physician. She had been in an auto accident three years prior, and her shoulder was hurting and getting worse. She had seen other physicians and had MRIs. At the November 12, 2002, visit, she did not bring any medical records with her. The patient was a poor historian. At the time of her visit, she said that the pain was going into her back as well. Petitioner reviewed the history and performed an examination, which included palpation of the shoulder, which did not reveal tenderness or swelling. Petitioner also performed range of motion tests. X-rays did not show any abnormalities. Petitioner's clinical impression was "shoulder pain, etiology undetermined." The patient was sent for an MRI. An old injury, which although being treated, continues to get worse, increases the complexity of this case. With respect to the visit of November 26, 2002, the patient did not show signs of improvement, and a decision was made for surgery. This decision was not complex. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS November 12, 2002, should be 99244, and Petitioner should receive credit for $115.12. The correct code for DOS November 26, 2002, should be 99213, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $39.51. Patient 13 was a referral from Dr. Haiger and was seen by Petitioner on June 5, 2001. The patient was a 65-year-old deaf female, who presented experiencing severe pain in her left knee for almost ten years. Eight years prior she had undergone arthroscopic surgery on the knee, but it had not gotten better. The patient was in physical therapy and using canes. Petitioner reviewed the history and performed an examination. Communication between Petitioner and the patient was by writing. This was a complex patient, both because of the difficulty in communication and the fact that this was an old injury which had received much treatment, including surgery, and had not improved. On her return visit on August 7, 2001, the patient had not improved using the ordered medication. After consultation, a decision for surgery was made. With respect to the visit of June 4, 2002, the patient's complaint was pain in her left shoulder for a month. The patient continues to regress, in spite of Petitioner's treatment. This is a complex patient, and her medical record is voluminous. However, the visit of August 13, 2002, was merely routine. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that Petitioner should be given credit for $113.18 for DOS June 5, 2001, since the correct code is 99244; the correct code for DOS August 7, 2001, is 99213; the correct code for DOS June 4, 2002, is 99214; and the correct code for DOS August 13, 2002, is 99213, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $89.21. Patient 14 was a referral from Dr. Bagloo, who presented to Petitioner on January 15, 2002, with pain in her left foot. She had twisted her ankle at home a week previously and actually heard bones cracking. She was initially seen at the hospital. A computed tomography scan did not reveal a fracture. A week later on January 15, 2002, she came to see Petitioner. Her examination revealed tenderness of the dorsal aspect of the left foot. An X-ray revealed a fracture of the second-base metatarsal. The patient received a short-leg cast. The patient was seen again on February 12, 2002, and examination indicated that the patient was "healed." On July 9, 2002, the patient again saw Petitioner with pain in her left foot. She had experienced a seizure a week and a half prior. The seizure and the prior injury added to the complexity of this case. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS January 15, 2002, is 99244, and Petitioner should be given credit for $118.12. The correct code for DOS February 12, 2002, is 99213, and Petitioner should receive no credit; the correct code for DOS July 9, 2002, is 99214, and Petitioner should be given credit for $48.27, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $32.33. Patient 15 was a 15-year-old male from Avon Park, with scoliosis. He had hurt himself when he fell off his boogie board and hit his chest. After reviewing the history, performing an examination, and taking X-rays, the patient was referred to a pediatric orthopedist. The age of the patient and the pre-existing condition affected the complexity of this case, although the scoliosis was previously diagnosed. The greater weight of evidence supports a finding that the correct code for DOS June 11, 2002, is 99243, and Petitioner should not be given credit. Therefore, there is no reduction of the total amount disallowed. Patient 16 was a referral from Dr. Libbrato. However, the patient was previously diagnosed, Petitioner billed at code 99245, and Respondent's expert opined that the code should be 99203. The billing code should account for this being a referral. The greater weight of evidence supports a finding that the correct code for DOS March 25, 2002, is 99243, and Petitioner should be given credit for $64.28, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $75.64. Patient 17 was a referral from a Medicaid clinic. The patient was a 10-year-old male who had hurt his left elbow playing football a week prior. Petitioner reviewed the history and examined the patient, who was in a long-arm splint. Petitioner replaced the splint with a long-arm cast. The age of the patient and the prior inappropriate treatment added to the complexity of this case. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that for DOS May 14, 2002, the correct code is 99244, and Petitioner should be given credit for $122.84. The correct code DOS June 6, 2002, is 99213, and Petitioner should be given credit for $31.31, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $38.76. Patient 18 was a 63-year-old male who had been referred by another physician for pain in his right-hand ring finger of six months' duration. The patient claimed no trauma. The age of the patient and the unexplained injury added to the complexity of this case. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS June 18, 2002, should be 99244, and Petitioner should be given credit for $116.12, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to zero. Patient 19 presented with a fracture that appeared to be healing, but it was difficult to tell if the patient's problem was from the fracture or from osteoporosis. The patient was not responding to treatment. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS August 12, 2002, is 99214, and Petitioner should be given credit for $41.51, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $15.04. Patient 20 was an eight-year-old male who had pain in his left heel from jumping off a truck and falling. He was referred from his primary care physician. The complexity of this case was increased due to the age of the patient and the fact that prior treatment had not been effective. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS October 17, 2002, is 99244, and Petitioner should be given credit for $122.84, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to zero. Patient 21 was a 10-year-old male from Plant City, who injured his right arm and shoulder in a fall from monkey bars. Petitioner's diagnosis was a fractured right humerus. The young age of this patient, plus the fact that he was a referral, added to the complexity of this case. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS May 24, 2001, is 99244, and Petitioner should be given credit for $115.18, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $45.33. Patient 22 was a nine-year-old male referred by Dr. Narvez for right leg pain. He was injured when another child fell on him. Also, the patient had broken the same leg about a year prior. A re-injury and young age added to the complexity of this case. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS January 8, 2002, is 99244, and Petitioner should be given credit for $118.12, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to zero. Patient 23 was a 37-year-old male from Lake Placid, referred by Dr. Campbell. He presented with right shoulder pain. Approximately two years prior he was shot in that shoulder. The pain was in the acromioclavicular joint. The pain was felt to be a result of the injury from the gunshot wound, and surgery was recommended. The pre-existing condition increased the complexity of this case. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS January 29, 2002, is 99244, and Petitioner should be given credit for $116.12, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $14.47. Patient 24 was referred by Dr. Rivas for ongoing low back pain. The patient presented on January 16, 2001, as a 53-year-old female and stated that the pain had been getting worse in spite of treatment. It was localized in the left groin, the left posterior iliac region, the left buttock, the posterior aspect of the thigh, and the calf. The long-standing nature of the pain, without improvement from treatment, added to the complexity of this case, as well as the multiple therapies employed. The MRI reading on February 1, 2001, should be allowed. On the visit of March 1, 2001, the patient reports a new problem with pain in her knee. The visit of June 5, 2001, revealed that the patient is improved, but still in pain. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that Petitioner should be given credit for $115.18 for DOS January 16, 2001, code 99245; $42.81 for DOS February 11, 2001, code 76140; $31.31 for DOS March 1, 2001, code 99213; $31.31 for DOS June 5, 2001, code 99213, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $28.18. Patient 25 was a seven-year-old female from Lake Wales, referred by Dr. Powell for bilateral leg deformities and fallen arches. The patient also had scoliosis. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS January 27, 2001, is 99244, and Petitioner should be given credit for $115.18, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $32.56. Patient 26 was an 18-year-old male with scoliosis, who had recently come to the United States from Cuba and was referred to Petitioner for evaluation. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS September 12, 2002, is 99243, and Petitioner should not be given credit, thus the total amount disallowed remains at $58.56. Patient 27 was a 36-year-old female who was referred by Dr. Korabathing for left hip pain. She had injured it two or three weeks prior when she fell. She was initially seen in the emergency room. The discoloration persisted and the knee continued to "give out." The complexity of the case is increased because of the patient's lack of improvement. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code is 99244 for DOS April 11, 2002, and for April 23, 2002, the correct code is 99214, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $29.87. There was no challenge to the adjusted coding of Patient 28 to 99213. Patient 29 was a referral from Dr. Katherinlin. He was a 13-year-old male, who injured his left foot while playing football two or three days prior. He was initially treated at an outpatient facility. Petitioner changed the treatment plan. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS October 2, 2001, is 99244, and although he did not initially challenge the change in coding, Petitioner should be given credit for $116.12, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to $15.11. Patient 30 was referred by Family Medical Center of Lakeland, Florida. The patient was a 56-year-old male with pain in the right hip and pelvis. He had been in a motorcycle accident three years prior with numerous and substantial injuries. Due to the number and substantiality of the injuries, this was a complex case. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the correct code for DOS February 26, 2002, is 99244, and Petitioner should be given credit for $118.12, thus reducing the total amount disallowed to zero. The adjustments in the preceding paragraphs drop the total overpayments for the 30 sample patients as shown in Respondent's Audit Report from $2,405.10 to $790.99. Dividing that by the total number of sample claims reviewed (133), yields a disallowance per claim of $5.94. Multiplying $5.94 by the total number of claims for the Audit Period (5,399), yields a "point estimate of overpayment" of $32,070.06. Calculating the 95 percent confidence level can be accomplished by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, enter a final order revising its Final Agency Audit Report as directed herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2005.
