Findings Of Fact The Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency) is the successor to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as the single state agency responsible for the administration of the Medicaid program in the State of Florida. The Agency is required to operate a program to oversee the activities of Medicaid providers and is authorized to seek recovery of Medicaid overpayments to providers pursuant to Section 409.913, Florida Statutes. The division of the Agency responsible for the oversight of Medicaid providers is referred to as Medicaid Program Integrity. On October 10, 1985, the Petitioner, Billy Beeks, M.D., (Provider) executed a Medicaid Provider Agreement which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The provider agrees to keep complete and accurate medical and fiscal records that fully justify and disclose the extent of the services rendered and billings made under the Medicaid program . . . . The provider agrees to submit Medicaid claims in accordance with program policies and that payment by the program for services rendered will be based on the payment methodology in the applicable Florida Administrative Rule. . 8. The provider and the Department agree to abide by the provisions of the Florida Administrative Code, Florida Statutes, policies, procedures, manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program and Federal laws and regulations. Among the "manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program" referenced in paragraph 8 of the provider agreement was the Medicaid Physician Provider Handbook (hereinafter referred to as the "MPP Handbook"). Chapter 10 of the MPP Handbook addressed the subject of "provider participation." At the times pertinent to this proceeding Section 9 of Chapter 10 included the following: RECORD KEEPING You must retain physician records on services provided to each Medicaid recipient. You must also keep financial records. Keep the records for five (5) years from the date of service. Examples of the types of Medicaid records that must be retained are: Medicaid claim forms and any documents that are attached, treatment plans, prior authorization information, any third party claim information, x-rays, fiscal records, and copies of sterilization and hysterectomy consents. Medical records must contain the extent of services provided. The following is a list of minimum requirements: history, physical examination, chief complaint on each visit, diagnostic tests and results, diagnosis, a dated, signed physician order for each service rendered, treatment plan, including prescriptions for medications, supplies, scheduling frequency for follow-up or other services, signature of physician on each visit, date of service, anesthesia records, surgery records, copies of hospital and/or emergency records that fully disclose services, and referrals to other services. If time is a part of the procedure code prescription being billed, then duration of visit shown by begin time and end time must be included in the record. . Medicaid payments are based on billing codes and levels of services provided. In setting the appropriate billing to Medicaid, the level of service is determined pursuant to the MPP Handbook. At all times pertinent to this proceeding Section 1 of Chapter 11 of the MPP Handbook included the following pertaining to "covered services and limitations": HCPCS CODES and ICD-9-CM CODES Procedure codes listed in Chapter 12 are HCPCS (Health Care Financing Administration Common Procedure Coding System) codes. These are based on the Physician's Current Procedural Terminology, Fourth Edition. Determine which procedure describes the service rendered and enter that code and description on your claim form. HCPCS codes described as "unlisted" are used when there is no procedure among those listed that describes the service rendered. Physician's Current Procedural Terminology, Fourth Edition, Copyright . . . by the American Medical Association (CPT-4) is a listing of descriptive terms and numeric identifying codes and modifiers for reporting medical services and procedures performed by physicians. The Health Care Financing Administration Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) includes CPT-4 descriptive terms and numeric identifying codes and modifiers for reporting medical services and procedures and other materials contained in CPT-4 which are copyrighted by the American Medical Association. The Diagnosis Codes to be used are found in the International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition, Clinical Modifications (ICD-9- CM). A diagnosis code is required on all physician claims. Use the most specific code available. Fourth and fifth digits are required when available. All billings pertinent to this proceedings are for patient office visits. Prior to amendments effective January 1, 1992, the MPP also provided in Section 1, Chapter 11, for six levels of service associated with the office visit procedure code. These levels of service, in ascending order of complexity, are "Minimal, "Brief", "Limited", "Intermediate", "Extended", and "Comprehensive". The least amount paid by Medicaid to a provider was for a "Minimal" level office visit. The level of payment immediately above the "Minimal" level were the "Brief" and "Limited" levels, which entitled a provider to the same payment. Immediately above the "Brief" and "Limited" levels, in ascending order of payment, were "Intermediate", "Extended", and "Comprehensive". Section 1, Chapter 11 of the MPP contained the following discussion of the six levels of service: There are six levels of service associated with the visit procedure codes. They require varying skills, effort, responsibility, and medical knowledge to complete the examination, evaluation, diagnosis, treatment and conference with the recipient about his illness or promotion of optimal health. These levels are: Minimal is a level of service supervised by a physician. Brief is a level of service pertaining to the evaluation and treatment of a condition requiring only an abbreviated history and exam. Limited is a level of service used to evaluate a circumscribed acute illness or to periodically reevaluate a problem including a history and examination, review of effectiveness of past medical management, the ordering and evaluation of appropriate diagnostic tests, the adjustments of therapeutic management as indicated and discussion of findings. Intermediate level of service pertains to the evaluation of a new or existing condition complicated with a new diagnostic or management problem, not necessarily related to the primary diagnosis, that necessitates the obtaining of pertinent history and physical or mental status findings, diagnostic tests and procedures, and ordering appropriate therapeutic management; or a formal patient, family or a hospital staff conference regarding the patient's medical management and progress. Extended level of service requires an unusual amount of effort or judgment including a detailed history, review of medical records, examination, and a formal conference with the patient, family, or staff; or a comparable medical diagnostic and/or therapeutic service. Comprehensive level of service provides for an in-depth evaluation of a patient with a new or existing problem requiring the development or complete reevaluation of medical data. This service includes the recording of a chief complaint, present illness, family history, past medical history, personal review, system review, complete physical examination, and ordering appropriate tests and procedures. Chapter 11 of the MPP was amended, effective January 1, 1992. Instead of the six levels of service for office visits, five levels of service, referred to as "evaluation and management" (E/M) service codes were adopted. The E/M levels of service levels ranged from Level 1 to Level 5 in ascending order of complexity and payment. 1/ Section 1, Chapter 11 of the MPP, as amended January 1, 1992, provides the following discussion as to the development of the E/M service codes: The American Medical Association, in cooperation with many other groups, replaced the old "visit" codes with the new "evaluation and management" (E/M) service codes in the 1992 CPT. This is a result of the Physician Payment Reform which requires the standardization of policies and billing practices nationwide to ensure equitable payment for all services. The new E/M codes are a totally new concept for identifying services in comparison to the old visit codes. They are more detailed and specific to the amount of work involved. Section 1, Chapter 11 of the MPP, as amended January 1, 1992, provides that the level of E/M codes are defined by the following seven components: Extent of History, Extent of Examination, and Complexity of Medical Decision- Making, Counseling, Coordination of Care, Nature of Presenting Problem, and time. 2/ After determining whether the office visit is for a new or established patient, Section 1, Chapter 11 of the MPP, as amended January 1, 1992, instructs the provider to determine the level of E/M services by taking into consideration the following three key components: Extent of History, Extent of Examination, and Complexity of Medical Decision-making. Section 1, Chapter 11 of the MPP, as amended January 1, 1992, provides the following discussion under the subheading "Extent of History": There are four types of history which are recognized: 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; extended system review; pertinent past, family and/or social history. Comprehensive - chief complaint; extended history of present illness; complete system review; complete past, family and social history. Section 1, Chapter 11 of the MPP, as amended January 1, 1992, provides the following discussion under the subheading "Extent of Examination": There are four types of examinations which are recognized: Problem Focused - an examination that is limited to the affected body area or organ system. Expanded Problem Focused - an examination of the affected body area or organ system and other symptomatic or related organ systems. Detailed - an extended examination of the affected body area(s) and other symptomatic or related organ system(s) Comprehensive - a complete single system speciality examination or a complete multisystem examination. Section 1, Chapter 11 of the MPP, as amended January 1, 1992, provides the following discussion under the subheading "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 following factors: 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. The risk of significant complications morbidity and/or mortality, as well as co- morbidities, associated with the patient's presenting problem(s), the diagnostic procedure(s) and/or the possible management options. There are four types of medical decision- making which are recognized: straightforward, low complexity, moderate complexity, and high complexity. 3/ Rule 10C-7.047, Florida Administrative Code, 4/ pertains to the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program (EPSDT), and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Purpose. EPSDT is a comprehensive, preventive health care program for Medicaid- eligible children under age 21 that is designed to identify and correct medical conditions before the conditions become serious and disabling. Medicaid provides payment for EPSDT which allows entry into a health care system, access to a medical home (sic) and preventive/well child care on a regular basis. This periodic medical screening includes a health and developmental history, an unclothed physical examination, nutritional assessment, developmental assessment, laboratory tests, immunizations, health education, dental, vision and hearing screens, and an automatic dental referral for children age 3 and over. A billing for an EPSDT screening is compensated by Medicaid at a rate that is higher than the rate for a Limited or Level 2 office visit. A provider must document all components of the EPSDT screening in order to be entitled to payment for the screening. If all components of the EPSDT screening are not documented by a provider's records, Medicaid compensates the provider for a Limited or Level 2 office visit since the provider would have made sufficient contact with the recipient to justify that billing level. When conducting an audit of a provider's billings to the Medicaid program, employees of Medicaid Program Integrity review the provider's medical records to determine whether the level of services billed are justified by the medical records. Medical records must contain sufficient documentation to substantiate that the recipient received necessary medical services at the level billed by the provider. A routine urinalysis performed during the course of an office visit should be billed as part of the office visit and not billed as a separate service. Vicki Divens, a registered nurse, is a consultant employed by the Agency and was administratively responsible for the audit of the Provider's medical records. She conducted this audit pursuant to the Agency's rules and policies. Ms. Divens obtained a report from Consultec, the Agency's fiscal agent, that provides identifying information as to all services that were billed to Medicaid by the Provider for the audit period of June 1, 1991, through May 30, 1993. This computer report reflects the date that each service was billed to Medicaid by the Provider, the name and Medicaid number of each recipient of the service, the codes which are used to describe the procedure of the service billed, the level of the service, the amount paid to the Provider, and the date of payment. For the audit period, there were a total of 1,712 Medicaid recipients who received services from the Provider, there were 9,054 separate billings for services to recipients, and there was a total of $259,305.01 paid by Medicaid to the Provider. The Agency is authorized 5/ to employ a statistical methodology to calculate the amount of overpayment due from a provider where there has been overstated billings. The methodology used by the Agency is a form of cluster sampling that is widely accepted and produces a result that is recognized as being statistically accurate. For the audit that is the subject of this proceeding, the Agency determined that 23 patient files would be the number of files necessary for the statistical analysis. The Agency established that sampling was adequate to perform the statistical analysis. The 23 recipients whose medical records would be analyzed were thereafter selected on a completely random basis. Ms. Divens obtained from the Provider the medical records for the 23 patients that had been randomly selected for analysis. A total of 141 separate billings had been made for these 23 recipients during the audit period and each of those billings had been paid to the Provider by the Medicaid program. The medical records for the 23 recipients were thereafter reviewed by Dr. John Sullenberger, the Florida Medicaid Program's Chief Medical Consultant, who made the determination as to whether the medical records in the sampling justified the level at which Medicaid had been billed for each of the services. Based on the overbillings found in the sampling, the Agency calculated an estimate of the overpayment for all Medicaid billings during the audit period by using a formula that is recognized as producing a statistically accurate result. When Dr. Sullenberger initially reviewed the Provider's medical records, several of the medical files for recipients in the sampling had not been located. Without these records to substantiate the billings for these patients, no credit was given for those services. The amount of the alleged overpayment for all recipients during the audit period was initially calculated to be $60,753.25, which is the amount claimed in the Agency's final audit report letter dated December 13, 1993. Thereafter additional records were furnished to the Agency by the Provider and the alleged overpayment was recalculated to be $50,852.86, which is the amount the Agency asserted as being the amount of the overpayment at the beginning of the formal hearing. 5/ The following findings are made as to the billings that were in dispute at the formal hearing. The date of birth is given for each recipient to help identify the recipient. For office visits before January 1, 1992, the level of services are described as being "Minimal," "Brief," "Limited," "Intermediate," "Extended," or "Comprehensive." For office visits after January 1, 1992, the level of services are described as being Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, or Level 5. Patient 1 was born January 22, 1989. There were four billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On November 19, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On April 29, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On August 7, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 4. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On August 21, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 4. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 2 was born September 29, 1985. There were five billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On August 31, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Extended level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On September 3, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On October 25, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Extended level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On February 7, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On October 26, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 3 was born May 9, 1985. There were two billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On May 22, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On January 20, 1993, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 4 was born March 20, 1968. There was one billing for this patient at issue in this proceeding. A. On July 25, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 5 was born April 28, 1988. There were three billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On August 30, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On October 14, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Intermediate level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On April 3, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 6 was born February 7, 1987. There was one billing for this patient at issue in this proceeding. A. On August 30, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 7 was born February 25, 1987. There were two billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On August 30, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient and he also billed for a urinalysis. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level and that the billing for the urinalysis should be included as part of the Limited level office visit. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 8 was born July 11, 1988. There were three billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On September 10, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level and he billed separately for an urinalysis for this patient during this visit. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Intermediate and that the urinalysis should be included in this billing. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On March 23, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 9 was born January 9, 1989. There were four billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On August 23, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Extended level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On October 15, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On April 20, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level Four. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level Two. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On April 21, 1993, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 4. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level Two. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 10 was born August 30, 1988. There were three billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On September 4, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited Level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On October 14, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited Level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On July 21, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Level Two. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 11 was born September 17, 1989. There were fifteen billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On June 3, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Extended level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On June 14, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On July 6, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Intermediate level. Dr. Leterman was of the opinion that the medical records justified the Intermediate level billing (Leterman deposition, page 30), but Dr. Sullenberger testified the billing should be at the Limited level (Transcript, page 171). This conflict is resolved by finding that the medical records justify this billing at the Intermediate level so that no adjustment is necessary. On July 15, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On July 20, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On August 5, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On August 20, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Extended level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On October 30, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On November 25, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Intermediate level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On December 27, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. (See, Leterman deposition, page 34) On January 28, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 4. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On February 25, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On July 7, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 3. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On December 9, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On May 3, 1993, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 3. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 12 was born July 12, 1970. There were four billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On January 3, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On January 13, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On February 3, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On March 10, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 13 was born August 22, 1990. There was one billing for this patient that was initially at issue in this proceeding. On August 22, 1990, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. When Dr. Sullenberger, the Agency's expert, initially reviewed the Provider's medical records pertaining to this billing, he thought that the billing should be reduced to a Limited level office visit. The amount of overpayment claimed by the Agency at the beginning of the formal hearing was based on this billing being at a Limited level. At the formal hearing, Dr. Sullenberger testified that on further consideration, he believed that the medical records justified this billing as an EPSDT, so that no adjustment was necessary. Based on his testimony, it is found the medical records maintained by the Provider justify this billing and no adjustment is necessary. Patient 14 was born October 23, 1990. There were nine billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On September 27, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Intermediate level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On October 11, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Extended level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On October 21, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Intermediate level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On December 17, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Extended level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On January 31, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 4. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On May 19, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On June 4, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On July 7, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On May 7, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 15 was born November 9, 1990. There was one billing for this patient at issue in this proceeding. A. On September 24, 1991, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Comprehensive level. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Limited level. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 16 was born September 14, 1991. There were two billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On March 13, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 4. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On March 1, 1993, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 17 was born February 9, 1992. There were two billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On November 7, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On November 25, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. When Dr. Sullenberger, the Agency's expert, initially reviewed the Provider's medical records pertaining to this billing, he thought that the billing should be reduced to a Level 2 office visit. The amount of overpayment claimed by the Agency at the beginning of the formal hearing was based on this billing being at Level 2. At the formal hearing, Dr. Sullenberger testified that on further consideration, he believed that the medical records justified this billing at Level 3. Based on that testimony, it is found that this billing should have been at the Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 18 was born July 6, 1992. There were six billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On August 12, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On August 17, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and than this billing should have been at Level 4. 6/ The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On September 18, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On October 9, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and than this billing should have been at Level 3. 7/ The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On November 5, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On December 18, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Level 5. When Dr. Sullenberger, the Agency's expert, initially reviewed the Provider's medical records pertaining to this billing, he thought that the billing should be reduced to a Level 2 office visit. The amount of overpayment claimed by the Agency at the beginning of the formal hearing was based on this billing being at Level 2. At the formal hearing, Dr. Sullenberger testified that on further consideration, he believed that the medical records justified this billing at Level 3. Based on the testimony of Dr. Sullenberger and that of Dr. Leterman, it is found that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 19 was born June 12, 1989. There was one billing for this patient at issue in this proceeding. A. On February 9, 1993, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 20 was born May 18, 1987. There was one billing for this patient at issue in this proceeding. A. On July 27, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 21 was born April 27, 1988. There were four billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On January 12, 1993, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 4. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On February 17, 1993, the Provider billed Medicaid for an EPSDT for this patient. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. March 8, 1993, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at the Level 4. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On April 16, 1993, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 22 was born August 10, 1992. There were three billings for this patient at issue in this proceeding. On December 28, 1992, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On February 9, 1993, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 4. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at the Level 3. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. On February 22, 1993, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 4. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 2. The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing. Patient 23 was born May 23, 1993. There was one billing for this patient at issue in this proceeding. A. On May 26, 1993, the Provider billed Medicaid for services rendered to this patient at Level 5. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that the medical records maintained by the Provider do not justify this billing and that this billing should have been at Level 3 The Provider received an overpayment from the Medicaid program as a result of this billing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and that the Agency recalculate the total amount of the overpayment during the audit period based on the findings of fact contained herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 23rd day of August, 1995.
The Issue Respondent dentist was charged in a twenty-eight count administrative complaint with violations of Subsections 466.028 (1)(c), (1)(j), (1)(l), (1)(n), (1)(u), and (1)(bb) F.S. with regard to twenty-six patients.
Findings Of Fact Although there is evidence (P-12) that Respondent's professional license expired on December 31, 1989, the superior and more credible Exhibit P- 11, which shows that Respondent is currently actively licensed through December 31, 1991 is accepted as fact. Upon the foregoing and all other relevant testimony and exhibits, it is found that Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed dentist in the state of Florida, having been issued license number DN 0009810. Respondent's last known Florida address is 1617 Physician's Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32368. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was an approved Medicaid provider, subject to that program's rules and contracts. Effective May 19, 1987, pursuant to the Recommended and Final Orders in HRS v. Clement, DOAH Case No. 86-3023, Respondent was terminated from the Medicaid program for inappropriate billing in nine identified areas, which areas all fall in the categories of excessive billing or billings which conflicted with HRS claims provisions. Count I (M.C.) C.M.C. is the mother of M.C. (DOB 2/18/81) and A.S. A.S. was treated by the Respondent but M.C. was never provided any dental services by the Respondent. On March 27, 1986, a search warrant was served on Respondent by the State Attorney, who was accompanied by an investigator from the office of the Auditor General, Fraud Control Unit, Mr. Robert E.. Youngblood. At that time, no dental records for M.C. were found. Hearsay materials gathered by Mr. Youngblood, who testified, and by his deputy investigators and by DPR investigators, who did not testify, suggest that Respondent had claimed on March 21, 1985 for $140.00 worth of dental services allegedly rendered to M.C. on February 11, 1985, for which Medicaid's processing agent remitted to Respondent $75.00 for services which were never performed. However, no representative of the processing agent or its successor in interest was able to authenticate documentation that such claims were, in fact, made by Respondents and the supporting documentation for the investigators' summaries was likewise insufficiently authenticated, was uncorroborated, was presented without adequate predicate, and is partly illegible. Therefore, it is found that the investigators' summaries of unauthenticated documents or documents without appropriate predicate to render them at least reasonably reliable by ordinary persons do not constitute such hearsay as will support a finding of fraudulent claim being filed by Respondent for dental services which were never rendered by Respondent to M.C. (See, P-1; TR 31, 44-46, 133-147, 156-160) Counts II (T.S. #1) and III (T.S. #2) M.S. is the mother or caregiver of several children, among them T.S. #1 (DOB 8/3/70) and T.S. #2 (DOB 3/14/67) Respondent billed Medicaid for $185.00 and received $154.00 for dental work allegedly performed on T.S. #1 on December 13, 1984 and May 1, 1985. On March 27, 1986, a search warrant was served on Respondent by the State Attorney, who was accompanied by Mr. Youngblood. At that time no dental records for T.S. #1 were found. Respondent is required to provide dental records for each Medicaid patient, pursuant to the terms of his Medicaid contract. (P-2, P-3; TR 28-32, 59, 138-1.47, 156-160) Respondent billed on January 10, 198.5 and was subsequently paid $80.00 by Medicaid on January 23, 1985 for services allegedly rendered to T.S. #2 on December 13, 1984. Petitioner had admitted in evidence written statements of M.S. to the effect that neither T.S. #1 nor T.S. #2 was ever treated by Respondent, but neither M.S., T.S. #1, nor T.S. #2 appeared to testify, and the written hearsay statements are the only evidence of non-treatment. They corroborate, explain, or supplement no direct evidence of non-treatment and are therefore insufficient, pursuant to Section 120.58(1) F.S., to support a finding of fact that treatment of T.S. #1 and T.S. #2 by Respondent did not occur as claimed by the Respondent. Count IV (V.W.) [See also Counts XXV and XXVI] M.A. is the grandmother of several children, including V.W. (male, DOB 10/15/73). Roberta J.G. is V.W.'s sister. The oral testimony of M.A. is clear that V.W. was not seen by Respondent before February 21, 1986. Roberta J.G. testified that she thought V.W. had his teeth cleaned by Respondent in October 1986, and V.W. testified that he thought this was done in February of an unknown year. By a validly served search warrant, V.W.'s dental record was seized from Respondent. This seized dental record shows the first date Respondent provided dental services to V.W. was on February 21, 1986. Petitioner's Medicaid processor witness, Mr. Joseph Cooper, was unable to authenticate other materials assembled by the investigators, which exhibits purport to show that Respondent billed Medicaid for $230.00 and received payment in the amount of $101.00 for services he allegedly rendered V.W. on October 30, 1985, four months before the Respondent's office record shows the services were actually performed upon V.W. (P-4; TR 133-147, 156-160) Absent authentication of the claims/remittances, the premature or fraudulent filing of a claim for V.W. has not been proven. Counts V (M.T.) and VI (M.W.) A.V. is the mother of two boys, Marcus T. (DOB 2/29/80) and Martalius W. (DOB 4/6/67). A.V. testified by deposition (P-31) that Respondent pulled two of her teeth but never rendered any services to either of her children. More specifically, A.V.'s unrefuted testimony was that Respondent did not treat Marcus T. on December 6, 1984 or do gum surgery on Martalius W. on December 15, 1984. Due to the failure to authenticate the Medicaid records offered in support of the charges brought against Respondent under Count V for his alleged claims and receipt of Medicaid payments on behalf of Marcus T., those charges were not proven. However, the competent, credible evidence of record supports a finding that on January 10, 1985 Respondent claimed and on January 23, 1985 Medicaid paid Respondent $80.00 for treatment of Martalius W.`s gums (gingival curettage), when, in fact, such a service had not been rendered by Respondent. Although the claim was made by the Respondent for treatment of "Martel" W., not "Martalius W.," it is found that they are one and the same person. It is also clear that on March 27, 1986, no required dental record for Martalius W. was found by investigators. Respondent's file for Martalius W. which was found contained a variety of records for a girl [first name: Matesha; last name same as Martalius W.; DOB 8/1/78]. Apparently that female child was treated by Respondent on February 1, 1985 and February 4, 1985 by two bite wing x-rays and by cleaning and fluoriding, respectively, not for gum disease. (P-5, P-6, P-31; TR 36-42, 133-147, 156-160) Count VII (C.T.) C.T. (DOB February 15, 1968) is the son of J.A.T. Although J.A.T. signed a statement for the DPR investigators, neither she nor C.T. testified. Therefore, there is only uncorroborated hearsay that Respondent never treated this child. The bills, claims, and payments allegedly made or received by Respondent were not authenticated at formal hearing by appropriate custodians of those documents and therefore fraud has not been proven. (P-7, TR 133-147, 156- 160) There is also no credible, competent evidence to support the allegation that the Respondent failed to keep medical records for this patient. (TR 42-43) Counts VIII (D.L.) and IX (S.W.) E.P. is the mother of D.L. (DOB 3/2/82) and S.W. (DOB 4/1/77). None of these persons testified. Therefore, there is no direct evidence of the allegations in Count VIII that D.L. and S.W. have never been seen by Respondent or of the allegation in Count IX that S.W. has not been seen by Respondent. Credible, competent evidence of record does support a finding that Respondent was subsequently paid $77.00 by Medicaid, pursuant to Respondent's claim for $120.00 for dental services he asserted he had provided to D.L. on June 10, 1986 and that Respondent was paid $490.00 by Medicaid pursuant to Respondent's series of claims totalling $1,165.00 that he had rendered dental services to S.W. on August 3, 1985. Mr. Youngblood testified that Respondent produced no medical records for S.W. upon DPR's "request" of January 29, 1986 (TR 49) and that none were found pursuant to a search warrant validly served on March 27, 1986. Among the treatments of S.W. for which Medicaid paid Respondent was installation of six stainless steel crowns/caps at tooth sites A, B, I, J, K, and L on June 18, 1985 and July 4, 1985 when S.W. would have been approximately eight years old. As part of the Medicaid investigation, a consulting dentist examined S.W. and found that stainless steel crowns/caps had, in fact, been installed on her teeth as indicated in the claim and payment records. Upon the testimony of Frances Davis, an assistant to Dr. Sheppard, another local dentist, it is found that Dr. Sheppard installed six stainless steel crowns/caps on an "S.W." with the identical name and birth date but living at a different address from the "S.W." who is the subject patient of Count IX of the Administrative Complaint herein. The undersigned infers that both S.W.'s are one in the same. Dr. Sheppard installed crowns at S.W.'s teeth T, S, I, J, A, and B in 1981. Dr. Kekich, who was accepted as an expert in dentistry, testified that it was his expert opinion that stainless steel crowns/caps installed in 1981 in a four-year-old child would not require replacing in 1985. (TR 148-151) Upon the foregoing, it is found that Respondent did not install either new crowns/caps or replacement crowns/caps on S.W.'s A, B, I, and J teeth in 1985 but made a fraudulent claim for work associated therewith in a minimum amount of $440.00 for which Medicaid actually paid Respondent $172.00. Counts X (T.J.), XI (A.J.), XII (C.J.), XIII (K.J.), and XIV (W.J.) G.J. is the mother of T.J. (male, DOB 10/11/70), A.J. (male, DOB 8/19/73), C.J. (male, DOB 11/27/74), K.J. (female, DOB 9/1/77), and W.J. (male, DOB 6/25/72). According to G.J.'s unrefuted testimony, Respondent never provided any dental services to any of these children. (TR 15-17) With regard to A.J., there is credible, competent evidence to establish that Respondent claimed/billed for $165.00 and was subsequently paid $92.00 by Medicaid for dental services allegedly rendered to A.J. on June 6, 1985, which services were in fact never rendered by Respondent. With regard to C.J., there is credible, competent evidence to establish that Respondent claimed/billed for $105.00 and was subsequently paid $62.00 by Medicaid for dental services allegedly rendered to C.J. on June 6, 1985 which services were in fact never rendered by Respondent. With regard to K.J., there is credible, competent evidence to establish that Respondent claimed/billed for $105.00 and was subsequently paid $62.00 by Medicaid for dental services allegedly rendered to K.J. on June 6, 1985, which services were in fact never rendered by Respondent. (P-15, P-16, P- 17; TR 142-146). With regard to W.J., the evidence supports a finding that Respondent made a claim for $105.00 in Medicaid monies, and it may be inferred that Medicaid paid $62.00 to Respondent for the nonexistent treatment. (P-18; TR 142-147, 156-160) Lack of proper authentication of the Medicaid records offered in support of the allegations that Respondent fraudulently claimed and collected for dental work he never performed on T.J. renders those exhibits uncorroborated hearsay incapable of sustaining a finding of fraud as fact. (TR 142-147, 156- 160) No competent evidence was presented to support the allegations contained in Count X paragraph 58, Count XI paragraph 64, Count XII paragraph 70, Count XIII paragraph 76, or Count XIV paragraph 82 which pertain to Respondent's inability to produce records for each of the foregoing five children. Count XV (C.C.) Respondent billed and was subsequently paid by Medicaid for dental services allegedly rendered to C.C. (adult, DOB 12/7/55) on or about September 14, 1985. There is no direct, credible, competent evidence of record to prove that C.C. did not receive dental services from the Respondent or that Respondent was requested to produce or failed to produce dental records for C.C. as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. (P-19; TR 137-148, 156-160) Count XVI (L.S.) Respondent billed and was subsequently paid by Medicaid for dental services allegedly rendered to L.S. (adult, DOB 9/28/51) on or about September 11, 1985. There is no direct, credible, competent evidence of record to prove that L.S. did not receive dental services from the Respondent or that Respondent failed to produce a dental record in response to a request from an investigator. In fact, the evidence of Mr. Youngblood, sketchy as it is, suggests that at some unspecified point in time, checks and some dental records were produced to some other investigator by the Respondent's wife, acting as Respondent's office manager. (P-20; TR 69-71, 137-147, 156-160) Count XVII (C.F. Jr.) D.D. is the mother of C.F. Jr. (DOB 5/24/82). Respondent billed and was subsequently paid by Medicaid for dental services allegedly rendered to C.F. Jr. There is no direct, credible, competent evidence of record to prove that C.F. Jr. did not receive dental services from Respondent or that Respondent was requested to produce or failed to produce dental records for C.F. Jr. as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. (P-21; TR 137-147, 156-160) Counts XVIII (D.W.) and XIX (G.W.) G.W., a/k/a G.W.W., (DOB 9/10/58) is the mother of D.W. (male, DOB 1/5/84). Pursuant to G.W.'s unrefuted testimony, neither she nor her son, D.W., was ever treated by Respondent. At formal hearing, Joseph Cooper testified to authenticate Exhibit P-22, the records purporting to refer to D.W. Mr. Cooper based his testimony upon his prior certification and signature appearing on Exhibit P-22 in red. (TR 22) However, no such signed certification by Mr. Cooper actually appears on any paper within that file except for one claim therein. Concomitantly, Mr. Cooper could not orally authenticate as Medicaid business records those documents which purported to refer to G.W. (P-23), presumably because they bore no such prior red certification stamp executed by him (TR 142-147, 156-160), and yet Exhibit P-23 actually bears Mr. Cooper's prior certification in all material respects. Despite the tenuous predicate for the admissibility of these records/exhibits, the undersigned infers that in his testimony, Mr. Cooper really meant to identify Exhibit P-23, and, accordingly, Exhibit P-23 as to G.W. is found to establish that Respondent billed $55.00 and was subsequently paid $21.85 by Medicaid for dental services allegedly rendered to G.W. on June 20, 1985 and June 24, 1985, which services were in fact never rendered by Respondent, but finds the evidence insufficient to establish any of the remaining allegations of Counts XVIII and XIX. Counts XX (T.R.), XXI (S.R.), and XXII (D.R.) M.R. is the mother of T.R. (DOB 12/20/77), S.R. (DOB 1/7/75), and D.R. (DOB 2/16/72). It was Petitioner's contention that Respondent claimed and collected for dental work on all three of the children when such work could not have occurred because they had moved to Tampa. Investigator Youngblood found the family living in Tampa, Florida, but only uncorroborated hearsay exists within this record to suggest on what date the family moved away from Tallahassee, Florida, and away from Respondent's dental care. There is no direct, credible, competent evidence of record to prove that claims were made or monies were received by Respondent with respect to T.R. and S.R.; however, clear and convincing direct evidence of record shows that Respondent billed $305.00 and was subsequently paid $152.00 by Medicaid for dental services allegedly rendered to D.R. on July 2, 1985. Mr. Youngblood testified that his investigative files contained dental charts/records on each of the children and that these charts/records showed the last treatment rendered to D.R. by Respondent had occurred on September 20, 1984, but it was not demonstrated how Investigator Youngblood got these charts. Nor could it be shown that there were not other charts which would justify the later treatment. While it is not necessary for Petitioner to prove a negative-positive premise, there is still an insufficient nexus to establish a fraudulent claim here. Count XXIII (M.H.) P.H. is the mother' of M.H. (DOB 12/23/84). Although the undersigned can deduce from the competent, credible evidence as a whole that M.H. wad approximately one year old on December 12, 1985, since neither P.H. nor M.H. testified, there is no direct evidence to support the allegation that M.H. did not receive services from Respondent on December 12, 1985 due to her tender year(s). Lack of authentication of the Medicaid records offered in support of the allegations rendered those exhibits uncorroborated hearsay incapable of sustaining a finding of fraud in billing/claiming/receiving Medicaid monies for services not rendered as fact. On March 27, 1986 in the course of executing a valid search warrant, investigators found no records for this child in Respondent's office. (P-27; TR 85-87, 146, 156-160) Count XXIV (T.M.) V.F. is the mother of T.M. (DOB 6/23/69). Neither of these persons testified, so there is no direct evidence of the allegation that T.M. had not been rendered dental services by the Respondent. There is, however, competent, credible evidence to establish that Respondent billed and was subsequently paid by Medicaid for dental services allegedly rendered to T.M. on May 5, 1985 and May 10, 1985. No evidence was presented to support the allegations which pertain to Respondent's inability to produce a dental record for T.M. (P-28; TR 88, 146, 156-160). Count XXV (R.G.) Count XXV of the Administrative Complaint put Respondent on notice of charges involving one R.G., without specifying R.G.'s gender or birth date. That count of the Administrative Complaint reads in toto as follows: Petitioner realleges and incorporates by reference those allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs. Respondent billed and was subsequently paid by Medicaid foil dental services allegedly rendered to R.G. on or about November 25, 1985 and December 6, 1985. On or about March 1986, a request for dental records of R.G. was issued to the Respondent by the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit. The Respondent produced a dental record for R.G. which showed the first date of service was on or about February 21, 1986. The Respondent billed Medicaid for $185.00 and received $128.00 This resulted in the overpayment by Medicaid of $128.00 for services not rendered. Based on the foregoing, Respondent has violated the following statutory provisions: Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1985), by filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statues (1985), by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1985), by exploiting the patient for the financial gain of the licensee; and Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1985), by being guilty of fraud, deceit or misconduct in the practice of dentistry. At formal hearing, Investigator Youngblood testified from materials which in part referred to a male "Robert G." His testimony attempted to draw the inference there from that Respondent had billed Medicaid for services performed on November 25, 1985 and December 6, 1985 on a male "Robert G.," but had submitted the bill/claim under the Medicaid number registered for "Roberta G." (female, DOB 11/11/70), a/k/a "Roberta J.G.," that Respondent's dental records which Mr. Youngblood seized by search warrant on March 27, 1986 referred to the specified female as "Roberta J.G." but not to any male "Robert G." and that Respondent's records further showed Respondent's Medicaid claim form dated February 21, 1986 related Respondent's first date of service to "Roberta J.G." as January 21, 1986, several months after Respondent made his claim. (TR 89-90) M.A. is the grandmother of Roberta G., a/k/a Roberta J.G., (female, DOB 11/11/70) and of V.W. (male, DOB 10/15/73). See, Count IV, FOF 7, supra. The oral testimony of M.A. is that Roberta J.G., a/k/a Roberta G., first saw Respondent professionally on February 21, 1986. Roberta J.G., a/k/a Roberta G., testified that she thought she had her teeth cleaned by the Respondent in October 1986 and had never seen him before that date. Petitioner's Medicaid processor witness was unable to authenticate the Medicaid claim and payment materials in Mr. Youngblood's investigative file for "Robert G." submitted and paid under "Roberta J.G.'s" Medicaid number (P-30), and absent such authentication, the fraudulent or even the premature filing of a claim by Respondent has not been proved. (TR 137-147, 156-160) Count XXVI (K.A.) M.A., the grandmother of V.W. [see, Count IV] and Roberta J.G. [see, Count XXV] is also the mother of K.A. This is not to suggest that K.A. (female, DOB 11/17/65), who is the subject of this Count, gave birth to either V.W. when K.A. was eight years old or to Roberta J.G. when K.A. was five years old. This is a "blended" family of several generations which sometimes lives together and sometimes does not. At all material times, K.A. lived with M.A. The oral testimony of M.A. (TR 125-129) and the testimony by deposition of K.A. (female, DOB 11/17/65) (P-34) is unequivocal and unrefuted that K.A. has never been treated by Respondent. The contents of the investigator's file (P-29) containing claims and payment records was not authenticated by the Medicaid processor witness, and therefore the allegations of fraudulent claim and collection of Medicaid payments by Respondent have not been proved by direct, credible, competent evidence. (TR 137-147, 156-160) Count XXVII Pursuant to the foregoing, Petitioner has shown repeated violations of Chapter 466 F.S. so as to discipline under Section 466.028(1)(bb) F.S., but there is no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to comply with a lawfully issued subpoena of the Board of Dentistry or the Department of Professional Regulation. Count XXVIII On October 6, 1987, the Respondent pled nolo contendere to the third degree felony "medicaid fraud," pursuant to Section 409.325 F.S. and to "grand theft," pursuant to Section 812.014 F.S. He was adjudicated guilty in State v. Clement, Leon County Circuit Court Case No. 86-2519, of the foregoing crimes and fined. Costs were assessed. However, Respondent's sentence was stayed and withheld pending successful completion of five years' probation on each count to run concurrently. His probation included paying restitution of $2,498.55. Although DPR counsel acknowledged that an appeal of his conviction had been filed by Respondent, there is no evidence of record that the foregoing judgment has been reversed, remanded, or otherwise altered
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Dentistry enter a Final Order which Dismisses all Counts and/or paragraphs of the Administrative Complaint listed in Conclusions of Law paragraphs 8 and 9, supra. Finds Respondent has violated all charges listed in Conclusions of Law paragraph 7, supra, and Assesses a penalty of $9,000.00 and two year suspension of Respondent's license to practice dentistry in Florida, subject to reinstatement terms to be determined by the Board in its expertise and set forth in its Final Order. DONE and ENTERED this 3 day of July, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 day of July, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy M. Snurkowski, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Norman J. Clement, D.D.S. 20060 Santa Barbara Detroit, Michigan 48221 William Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 409.913, Florida Statutes, by failing to retain required Medicaid records, thereby incurring a $10,000 fine according to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-9.070(7)(e).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a Medicaid Provider of Assistive Care Services in Oakland Park, Florida. Annie Mathew is a registered nurse who manages Respondent's facility. Respondent was obligated, pursuant to the Medicaid Provider Agreement executed in June 2008, to comply with applicable Medicaid laws, administrative rules, and Medicaid handbooks. The Agency is the state agency charged with the administration of the Medicaid program in Florida. Within the Agency, the Inspector General ensures the integrity of the Medicaid program by conducting investigations of providers to ensure compliance with all Medicaid rules. On December 7, 2011, the Agency conducted an unannounced on-site inspection of the medical records retained by Respondent. Mr. Cedeno and Ms. Hollis-Stancil conducted the investigation, reviewing ten recipient files. The investigators found that nine of the recipient files did not contain a proper service plan; one recipient did not contain a service plan at all, and had an outdated health assessment. Respondent did not use the Medicaid form found in the Medicaid Assistive Care Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook for service plans; instead, Respondent used a form created by Respondent, which contained some, but not all, of the components addressed in the Medicaid form. The investigators noticed that the facility was clean and in good condition. At the hearing, Respondent admitted to not using the Medicaid form for service plans, and agreed that not all of the components addressed in the Medicaid form were addressed in the form created by Respondent. Specifically, the service plan must contain the expected outcome for the resident, and identify who is going to provide specific services to the resident. Respondent's forms did not reflect this information. As to one recipient, recipient S.V., the file did not contain a current health assessment. The health assessment found in the file had expired in September 2011, three months prior to the inspection in December 2011. All ten counts against Respondent are supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that pursuant to rule 59G-9.070(7)(e), the Agency for Healthcare Administration fine Respondent $10,000 for ten first offense counts of failure to comply with the Medicaid rules. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA E. VARN 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 19th day of March, 2013.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated section 409.913 and applicable Medicaid rules by failing to document that three of its employees had all required trainings and by failing to provide daily resident attendance logs, as alleged in Petitioner's Sanction Notice, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration, is the state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program pursuant to chapter 409. Petitioner's duties include operating a program to oversee the activities of Medicaid recipients, providers and their representatives, to ensure that fraudulent and abusive behavior and neglect of recipients occur to the minimum extent possible, and to recover overpayments and impose sanctions as appropriate. § 409.913(1), Fla. Stat. Respondent, Merry Star, Inc., is a Medicaid provider providing home-based and community-based services to the developmentally disabled in a residential rehabilitation setting. Respondent has been enrolled as a Medicaid provider since 2004. Currently, Respondent's facility has six clients. Petitioner's Inspection of Respondent's Facility On June 2, 2011, a team from Petitioner's Inspector General's Office, Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity ("MPI"), consisting of Ms. Ribera, Ms. Solomon, and another employee, conducted an unannounced on-site inspection of Respondent's facility to review Respondent's employee records and resident files for compliance with applicable Medicaid program requirements. Specifically, the team reviewed the records of four of Respondent's employees to determine whether Respondent documented that the employees received trainings in Core Competency, HIV/AIDS, Infection Control, and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, as required by the Florida Medicaid Developmental Disabilities Waiver Coverage and Limitations Handbook, May 2010 ("Handbook").3/ The team also reviewed the employee records to determine whether Respondent documented that its employees had undergone the level 2 security background screening required for employment at Respondent's facility.4/ The team also reviewed Respondent's residents' files to determine whether Respondent complied with the Medicaid services rendition documentation requirements established in the Handbook. Employee Records The team determined that Respondent's records did not contain documentation showing that employee Sammy Bruton had undergone level 2 security background screening. Ms. Deravile testified that Mr. Bruton had undergone level 2 security background screening in 2009. She acknowledged that this documentation was not in Respondent's files when Petitioner conducted the inspection, and that Respondent did not provide the documentation to Petitioner at any time before the hearing. She provided documentation of this screening as a late-filed exhibit at the hearing.5/ The team also determined that the files lacked documentation showing that employee Aniece Guillaume was trained in Core Competency, HIV/AIDS, and Infection Control, and documentation showing that employee Willio Deravile was trained in First Aid, Health and Well-being, and Infection Control. Ms. Deravile disputed that the documentation showing Ms. Guillaume's HIV/AIDS training was not in the file, but conceded that at the time of the inspection, Ms. Guillaume's Core Competency Training was not current, and Mr. Deravile's First Aid Training and Infection Control Training were not current. Accordingly, Respondent's employee files did not contain the required documentation of these trainings.6/ Residents' Daily Attendance Logs The team inspected Respondent's residents' files to verify whether the residents were present at the facility each day to receive the services for which Respondent billed the Medicaid program. The team determined that Respondent's files did not contain any completed daily attendance logs showing that the residents actually had been present at the facility on the days for which Respondent had billed. Ms. Ribera testified, and Ms. Deravile confirmed, that Respondent subsequently provided the completed daily attendance logs to Petitioner. Ms. Deravile acknowledged that these logs were completed after the inspection, rather than contemporaneously with Respondent's rendition of the services. However, she testified that she did not realize that daily attendance logs were required to be completed for each resident, and that Respondent instead kept daily Medication Administration Records ("MARs") and Individual Daily Health and Safety Records ("IDHSRs") for each resident. MARs are forms on which Respondent records all medications given to its residents, at the time the medication is given, on a daily basis. IDHSRs are forms on which Respondent records specific information, such as liquid and food intake and other personal information, for each resident on a daily basis.7/ Ms. Deravile posited that because the MARs and IDHSRs were completed contemporaneously with rendition of services on a daily basis, they demonstrated that the residents were in attendance at Respondent's facility on a daily basis, and therefore functioned as daily attendance logs. Ms. Deravile testified that Respondent completed and submitted the daily attendance logs to Petitioner after the inspection because she had learned, during the inspection, that Petitioner required such logs to be kept. She used the information in the MARs and IDHSRs to complete the daily attendance logs provided to Petitioner. Ms. Deravile acknowledged that she did not provide the MARs or IDHSRs to Petitioner during the inspection or at any time prior to the hearing. Petitioner's rules, including the Handbook, do not prescribe a particular form that must be used as a daily attendance log. Petitioner does not provide a specific form to providers for use as a daily attendance log. The undisputed evidence established that Respondent had not previously been charged with, or been determined to have committed, any violation of Medicaid law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-9.070(7)(e), Respondent should be fined a total of $4000 for four first offense violations of Florida's Medicaid laws. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Cathy M. Sellers Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 2012.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner is liable for overpayment of Medicaid claims for the period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96, as stated in Respondent's Final Agency Audit Report dated May 5, 1998.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent) was the state agency charged with administration of the Medicaid program in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 409.907, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Henry M. Rubinstein, D.C., (Petitioner) was a licensed chiropractor in the State of Florida and was providing chiropractic services to Medicaid recipients. Petitioner provided the services pursuant to a contract with Respondent under the Medicaid provider number 0503517-00. His Medicaid patients for years have included children and multi-handicapped children. Petitioner has published in peer review journals and is a board certified chiropractor. Dennis L. Jones, D.C., is a licensed chiropractor in the State of Florida. 1/ He was involved in the creation of Florida's Medicaid program and monitors the Florida Chiropractic Medicaid Program. Dr. Jones also serves as a Medicaid chiropractic consultant, including the issuance of prior authorizations for treatment. Prior authorizations are required for a chiropractor to provide and bill for visits by Medicaid recipients in excess of the set limited number. The maximum number of visits allowed per year prior to July 1, 1994, was 12, and after July 1, 1994, was 24. After July 1, 1994, prior authorization was required for visits beyond 24 for Medicaid recipients under the age of Prior authorization was granted for requests that demonstrated medical necessity. Dr. Jones denied many of Petitioner's requests for prior authorization. He denied the requests on the basis that the treatments were extending for periods of up to two years without detailed explanation of medical necessity to substantiate such extended periods of care. Dr. Jones observed that Petitioner's requests for such extended care routinely lacked substantiation and documentation for such extended care, such as x-rays, orthopedic and neurological findings, and subjective/objective descriptions. However, Dr. Jones granted some of Petitioner's requests for prior authorization to exceed the maximum number of visits. Dr. Jones had concerns as to the sufficiency of the documentation of Petitioner's requests for prior authorizations. As a result, when such requests were granted, Dr. Jones noted on the request forms that supplemental medical necessity needed to be documented more completely in the future. In 1996, Dr. Jones related his concerns about Petitioner in a letter to Respondent and included with the letter prior authorizations for primarily special needs children covering the years 1994 through 1996. Twenty-nine prior authorizations were included, with 25 of them for special needs children. His concerns related primarily to Petitioner's Medicaid patients who were special needs children and for whom Dr. Jones had reviewed only prior authorizations submitted by Petitioner. Further, in his letter, Dr. Jones requested an investigation into possible patient brokering, a criminal act. However, a request from a complainant for an investigation into a particular area of alleged violation does not prevent Respondent from identifying and investigating other areas of possible violation revealed by the documents provided. Dr. Jones' letter was referred to one of Respondent's employees, Judith M. Jensen. At that time, Ms. Jensen was also in the process of reviewing another complaint lodged against Petitioner by Dr. Jones, regarding prior authorizations for children, but covering a different time period--from 1993 through 1995. Ms. Jensen was, and is, employed by Respondent as a Human Services Program Specialist. Her duties include monitoring Medicaid claims and investigating Medicaid complaints and aberrant billings for Respondent's Medicaid Program Integrity Office. In investigating all billing irregularities or specific complaints, a review is typically made of the Medicaid provider's medical records. Substantiation of Medicaid claims that are submitted and paid is by adequate and proper medical record documentation. An audit, based upon a billing irregularity or complaint, is usually begun with the selection of a provider or a group of providers. Next, a sample of the chosen provider's Medicaid claims is chosen for a particular time period, which is the audit period. An analyst for Respondent then requests from the provider the medical records for the Medicaid recipients sampled for the audit period. The medical records are provided to and analyzed by a medical peer reviewer. If the medical peer reviewer recommends denial of payment for any of the claims, resulting in overpayment, Respondent forwards a preliminary audit letter to the Medicaid provider, describing the audit findings and requesting any supplemental medical records. A review of any submitted supplemental medical records is conducted, and the audit findings are adjusted in accordance with the results of the review. If an overpayment continues to be indicated after the review, Respondent forwards a final audit letter to the Medicaid provider. Respondent has a limited number of analysts and medical peer reviewers. Due to such constraints on Respondent, sampling is utilized due to its reliability, cost-effectiveness, and commonly accepted method for review of high volumes of Medicaid claims. Ms. Jensen initiated Respondent's review of Petitioner's Medicaid claims. She began the audit by requesting an ad hoc computer report on Petitioner's billing history for all Medicaid recipients under the age of 21 for the time period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96. Ms. Jensen's request concentrated only on Medicaid recipients under the age of 21 because Dr. Jones alerted Respondent primarily to prior authorizations for children. Ms. Jensen received the ad hoc computer report, which was a detail of all of Petitioner's Medicaid billings for Medicaid recipients under the age of 21 for the period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96. The report provided that for the time period indicated, Petitioner billed and was paid for 4,499 claims for 85 recipients, for a total amount of $71,731.30. Having received this information, Ms. Jensen requested a computer-generated selection of a random sample of 20 recipients from the total population of the 85 recipients. Twenty recipients were randomly selected from the total population of the 85 recipients, which showed, among other things, claims totaling 1,307 and payment for the claims totaling $20,710.69. Afterwards, Ms. Jensen requested Petitioner to provide all the medical records for the 20 sampled recipients for the time period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96. Petitioner complied with Ms. Jensen's request. Having received the medical records, Ms. Jensen engaged a peer review consultant, Dr. Ronald J. Hoffman, D.C., to evaluate the records submitted by Petitioner. She provided the medical records to Dr. Hoffman.. 2/ He was provided with the medical records of only 10 Medicaid recipients on two separate occasions, instead of all 20 at the same time. The Medicaid recipients' medical records were not "sanitized" when they were submitted to Dr. Hoffman, meaning that the names of the Medicaid recipients and provider, Petitioner, were not redacted. Dr. Hoffman, as a peer reviewer, rarely reviews files which have been sanitized. The failure to sanitize the medical records found to be of no consequence to Dr. Hoffman's determinations. Dr. Hoffman is a licensed chiropractor in the State of Florida and has been practicing for over 30 years. His practice includes patients who are pediatric and multi-handicapped, but these patients comprise a very small number of his patients. He performs chiropractic Medicaid utilization review for Respondent and is a Medicaid provider. He has performed chiropractic utilization review for more than 15 years. For the Medicaid program, Dr. Hoffman has been a consultant since 1997, but Petitioner's review was the first peer review performed by Dr. Hoffman for the Medicaid program. When Dr. Hoffman performs peer reviews for Respondent, he relies upon State statutes and Respondent's guidelines, specifically, The Chiropractic Coverage and Limitation Handbook, and his years of experience Dr. Hoffman is knowledgeable about what a medical record should contain in order for the medical record to demonstrate medical necessity for Medicaid reimbursement purposes. The medical record should contain the complete medical history; an examination showing the condition of the patient and why the patient is being treated; symptoms; standardized testing, including orthopedic and neurological tests; treatment notes; a treatment program; objective findings; special procedures; and an evaluation of the patient's progress. 3/ Petitioner agrees that, according to the Medicaid provider reimbursement handbook, the following are requirements for medical records: patient history; chief complaint for each visit; diagnostic tests and results; diagnosis; treatment plan, including prescriptions; medications, supplies, scheduling frequency for follow-up or other services; progress reports, treatment rendered; original signatures and dates; dates of service; and referrals to others. Dr. Hoffman was aware from review of the medical records provided by Petitioner that the Medicaid recipients were special needs children. However, he was unaware of Florida's special needs statutes (Subsections 409.803(1)(c) and 409.9126(1)(b), and Section 409.9121, Florida Statutes), which address, among other things, health care needs for special needs children, and he did not use the statutes in his determination. The failure to use the special needs statutes had little or no effect on Dr. Hoffman's review. The undersigned is persuaded and a finding of fact is made that Dr. Hoffman's failure to use the special needs statutes in his review did not invalidate his determinations. Dr. Hoffman was tendered and is accepted as an expert in chiropractic medicine. He is also found to be an appropriate peer reviewer for Petitioner's situation. Dr. Hoffman's testimony is found to be credible. After having reviewed the medical records, regarding the 20 randomly sampled Medicaid recipients, pursuant to Respondent's Medicaid peer review, Dr. Hoffman produced two reports of his findings. 4/ During his review, Dr. Hoffman considered all of the Medicaid recipients' visits, including those that had been granted prior authorization. Patient 1 was recipient K.K., with a date of birth of 5/18/86. 5/ Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 1's medical records did not support a finding of medical necessity. The medical records failed to support justification for Patient 1's 198 visits from 11/10/94 through 9/10/96. X-rays contained in the medical records were of such poor quality that they were of no diagnostic value; however, the x-rays were not a factor in the determination of medical necessity. Petitioner's medical notes were practically the same for each visit, with Petitioner noting practically the same comment(s); and there was no recorded orthopedic or neurological testing and no standard chiropractic evaluation forms justifying the number of treatments billed. Patient 1's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 1, 198 claims were paid in the amount of $3,081.30. Prior authorizations granted totaled $2,964. 6/ Patient 2 was recipient N.M., with a date of birth of 8/11/83. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 2's medical records lacked documentation demonstrating that the treatments were a medical necessity for Medicaid reimbursement purposes for the 175 visits from 7/12/94 through 6/27/96. The medical records contained no standard medical notes or examination forms and no orthopedic, neurological or chiropractic examination forms to justify treatments; and were redundant and repetitive. X-rays contained in the medical records were of such poor quality that they were of no diagnostic value; but, the x-rays have no impact on the determination of medical necessity. Patient 2's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 2, 175 claims were paid in the amount of $2,726.50. Prior authorizations granted totaled $2,964. Patient 3 was recipient D.A., with a date of birth of 4/6/89. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 3's medical records lacked justification for the 173 visits from 8/23/94 through 7/30/96. The medical records contained no standard procedures performed by an acceptable chiropractic physician licensed in the State of Florida. The medical records also indicated that a medical radiologist, Dr. Robert S. Elias, M.D., read the recipient's x-rays for the purpose of a medical diagnosis of treatment and that Dr. Elias' diagnosis directly conflicted with Petitioner's diagnosis; however, the x-rays were not a factor in the determination of medical necessity. Patient 3's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 3, 173 claims were paid in the amount of $2,693.70. Prior authorizations granted totaled $2,604. Patient 6 was recipient T.W., with a date of birth of 2/5/90. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 6's medical records lacked justification for the 160 visits from 1/3/95 through 9/3/96. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, no specified diagnosis, and no routine re- examinations. Furthermore, the medical records failed to show why Petitioner was treating Patient 6. X-rays contained in the medical records were not of diagnostic quality and were, therefore, of no diagnostic value; however, the x-rays had no impact on the determination of medical necessity. Patient 6's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 6, 160 claims were paid in the amount of $2,502.20. Prior authorizations granted totaled $1,882.90. Patient 24 was recipient G.H., with a date of birth of 7/20/95. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 24's medical records failed to justify the approximately 73 visits. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, no objective findings, and no standardized testing, including range of motion, muscle spasms, and orthopedic or neurological tests. For many of the visits, the only documentation contained in the medical records consisted of the same notation or statement: "Patient doing well." Patient 24's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 24, 72 claims were paid in the amount of $1,158.09. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 25 was recipient O.M., with a date of birth of 4/25/83. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 25's medical records failed to justify the 87 visits. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, no justification of diagnosis, and no standard medical tests. The notes that were recorded were quite sparse and repetitive and typically recorded as "Doing well." Patient 25's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 25, 71 claims were paid in the amount of $1,131.69. Prior authorizations granted totaled $753.60. Patient 27 was recipient C.F., with a date of birth of 2/12/84. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 27's medical records failed to justify the 67 visits from 10/11/95 through 3/25/96. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, no standardized examination forms, and no documentation of Patient 27's progress. Patient 27's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 27, 67 claims were paid in the amount of $1,079.59. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 28 was recipient K.H., with a date of birth of 8/22/94. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 28's medical records failed to justify the 69 visits. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes and no standardized testing, and showed no specific treatment provided based upon the requirements of the Medicaid laws. Patient 28's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 28, 66 claims were paid in the amount of $1,031.79. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 33 was recipient K.D., with a date of birth of 2/15/84. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 33's medical records failed to justify the 73 visits. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes and no standardized testing. Patient 33's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 33, 51 claims were paid in the amount of $800.70. Prior authorizations granted totaled $376.80. Patient 35 was recipient T.M., with a date of birth of 10/15/91. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 35's medical records failed to justify the 51 visits from 2/15/95 through 6/10/96. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. The medical records also stated that Dr. Elias read Patient 35's x- rays for the purposes of medical diagnosis of treatment and that Dr. Elias' diagnosis directly conflicted with Petitioner's diagnosis; however, the x-rays were not a factor in determining medical necessity. Patient 35's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 35, 51 claims were paid in the amount of $828.39. Prior authorizations granted totaled $753.60. Patient 39 was recipient B.T., with a date of birth of 8/8/95. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 39's medical records failed to justify the 47 visits from 2/9/95 through 10/19/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. Patient 39's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 39, 47 claims were paid in the amount of $765.59. Prior authorizations granted totaled $753.60. Patient 40 was recipient T.H., with a date of birth of 7/11/84. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 40's medical records failed to justify the 46 visits from 11/15/94 through 2/28/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. The medical records also indicated that Dr. Elias read the recipient's x-rays for the purposes of medical diagnosis of treatment and that Dr. Elias' diagnosis directly conflicted with Petitioner's diagnosis; however, the x-rays were not a factor in determining medical necessity. Patient 40's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 40, 46 claims were paid in the amount of $731.70. Prior authorizations granted totaled $753.60. Patient 45 was recipient T.W., with a date of birth of 9/26/90. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 45's medical records failed to justify the 22 visits from 4/24/95 through 11/15/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. Patient 45's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 45, 26 claims were paid in the amount of $408.20. Prior authorizations granted totaled $376.80. Patient 48 was recipient S.L., with a date of birth of 1/31/91. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 48's medical records failed to justify the 23 visits from 3/25/96 through 9/11/96. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. Patient 48's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 48, 23 claims were paid in the amount of $388.79. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 54 was recipient H.A., with a date of birth of 1/31/88. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 54's medical records failed to justify the 7 visits from 9/6/95 through 10/2/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. Patient 54's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 54, 19 claims were paid in the amount of $298.30. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 58 was recipient T.W., with a date of birth of 11/19/81. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 58's medical records failed to justify the 23 visits from 3/25/96 through 9/30/96. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. Patient 58's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 58, 17 claims were paid in the amount of $294.59. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 59 was recipient C.P., with a date of birth of 4/11/93. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 59's medical records failed to justify the 22 visits from 4/10/96 through 10/9/96. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, no documentation of standardized testing of the spine, no documentation of standard tests, including orthopedic and neurological tests, and no medical justification for ongoing care and treatment. Patient 59's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 59, 16 claims were paid in the amount of $278.89. Prior authorizations granted totaled $376.80. Patient 64 was recipient M.L., with a date of birth of 8/20/89. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 64's medical records failed to justify the 8 visits from 8/30/95 through 10/2/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, no documentation of standardized testing, and no description of Patient 64's pain or physical condition. Patient 64's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 64, 13 claims were paid in the amount of $204.10. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 69 was recipient A.L., with a date of birth of 1/14/92. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 69's medical records failed to justify the 9 visits from 2/27/95 through 3/20/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, and the documentation contained in the records was minimal and repetitious. Patient 69's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 64, 13 claims were paid in the amount of $204.10. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 77 was recipient N.J., with a date of birth of 4/16/80. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 77's medical records failed to justify the 7 visits from 3/6/95 through 3/29/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. Patient 77's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 77, 7 claims were paid in the amount of $137.59. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Dr. Hoffman recommended denial of all claims for the 20 sampled Medicaid recipients for the period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96 due to Petitioner's failure to adequately document medical necessity in the recipients' medical records. For the 20 sampled Medicaid recipients for the period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96, the total of the Medicaid payments was $20,710.69. As a result, the denial amount, the overpayment, for the 20 sampled recipients was the same, $20,710.69. The overpayment for the 20 sampled Medicaid recipients was extrapolated to the entire universe or total population of the 85 Medicaid recipients under the age of 21 for the period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96, which resulted in a total projected overpayment of $70,518.26. The actual total amount of Medicaid payments for the 85 Medicaid recipients for the covered time period was $71,731.30. Considering the actual total payment of $71,731.30, the projected overpayment of $70,518.26 is very close to the actual total payment and is inherently reasonable. There is an expectation that, because all the claims of the 20 sampled Medicaid recipients were denied, the projected denial for all the claims in the universe of 85 recipients would be very close to the actual total payment. The difference between the projected overpayment of $70,518.26 and the actual amount paid of $71,731.30 is $1,213.04. This difference is negligible and such negligible difference reflects the inherent accuracy and reliability of the statistical methodology utilized. The maximum error range is 5 percent. The difference between the projected overpayment total and the actual payment total is also well within the maximum error range of 5 percent, or $3,587, for a 95 percent statistical confidence interval. To illustrate Respondent's statistical methodology, first, begin with sampled Medicaid recipient Patient 1. As indicated previously, the total number of actual claims for the total population of 85 Medicaid recipients, who were under the age of 21, was 4,499, and the total amount paid for the claims was $71,731.30; the data being taken from Respondent's Medicaid claims database. For Patient 1, 198 claims were audited and $3,081.30 was the total amount paid for the claims. All of the $3,081.30 was denied and determined to be an overpayment. Second, the same process was used with all 20 Medicaid recipients sampled, which produced a total of 1,307 claims, which were all denied, and produced a total of $20,710.69 in overpayment. The total sampled overpayment of $20,710.69 was divided by the total number of sampled claims (1,307) to obtain a mean overpayment per sampled claim of $15.85. The overpayment per sampled claim of $15.85 was multiplied by the number of claims in the total population (4,499) to obtain a point estimate of the total population overpayment, which was $71,291.04. Third, adjusting the point estimate of $71,291.04 for any potential statistical error, Respondent's model reduces the point estimate by 1.73 standard deviations, yielding an error- adjusted total overpayment of $70,518.26. Respondent has a level of confidence that there is 95 percent chance that actual overpayment is a minimum of $70,518.26. The point estimate of $71,291.04 is very close to the actual payment of $70,731.30 for the claims of the total population of the 85 Medicaid recipients; therefore, the overpayment of $70,518.26 is relatively conservative. Respondent's audit was conducted in conformity with Respondent's standards and conformed to Respondent's manner in conducting audits. The audit also had no known deviations or irregularities or deficiencies in the technical processes utilized, except the failure to take into account the prior authorizations granted. As to the statistical aspect of Respondent's audit, Respondent presented the testimony of a statistical expert, Dr. James T. McClave, Ph.D. 7/ Dr. McClave's testimony is considered credible. Using statistical methods in Medicaid overpayment determinations is a common and well-accepted standard of practice. Statistical modeling in Medicaid auditing scientifically and accurately determines the extent of overpayments in a population of payments from a small sample of overpayments drawn from the population of payments. Statistical modeling is capable of providing reliable estimates of the integrity, or lack thereof, of a Medicaid provider's billings, within reasonable time and resource constraints. In the statistical formula, a sample of claims is used to obtain a valid statistical estimate of the overpayment, if any, associated with the entire population of claims from which the sample of claims was drawn. A point estimate, being the best estimate the sample has to offer of the overpayment, is taken; and then a factor, allowing for the uncertainty associated with the sample, is subtracted such that there is a specified level of confidence that what is obtained is the conservative estimate of what the total population overpayment would be. The point estimate is referred to as "the lower 95 percent confidence bound," 8/ and the number obtained is a number which one "can be 95 percent confident that it is an underestimate of what the total overpayment would be" 9/ if the entire population was sampled. Respondent complied with the statistical methodology. The random selection process and the ad hoc computer report were valid and reliable. The results of the sampling and extrapolation were valid and reliable on the basis of the total population of Petitioner's Medicaid patients was pediatric patients and the results were limited to Petitioner's Medicaid patients under the age of 21. Further, the sample size of 20 Medicaid recipients from the total population of 85 was adequate. However, the results of the sampling and extrapolation are not reliable as they pertain to the failure of Respondent to take into consideration the granted prior authorizations. Respondent is compelled and should be provided an opportunity to re-apply its statistical methodology in light of granted prior authorizations not being considered. Uncertainty now exists as to what effect the granted prior authorizations would have on the outcome of the total overpayments. The denial of all of Petitioner's claims was a situation of first impression for Respondent. Prior to the instant case, Respondent had had no chiropractor's Medicaid claims go through peer review and denial recommended. By letter dated February 4, 1998, Respondent forwarded to Petitioner a Preliminary Agency Audit Report (Preliminary Audit Report). The Preliminary Audit Report informed Petitioner, among other things, that Respondent's preliminary determination was that Petitioner had received an overpayment of $70,518.26 due to the claims being determined not medically necessary, and requested, among other things, that Petitioner submit any additional information or documentation which may reduce the overpayment. The Preliminary Audit Report also informed Petitioner of the overpayment calculation and statistical formula used by Respondent. In response to the request for additional information or documentation, Petitioner forwarded to Ms. Jensen a videotape and testimonials. Ms. Jensen did not send the testimonials and videotape to Dr. Hoffman, the peer reviewer, for his review because these items (1) were determined by her to have been created prior to recording of the medical records at issue, and, therefore, did not constitute a medical record for review; and (2) were, consequently, not relevant. The undersigned is persuaded and a finding of fact is made that the testimonials and videotape were not relevant and need not have been submitted to Dr. Hoffman for his review. By letter dated May 5, 1998, Respondent forwarded to Petitioner its Final Agency Audit Report (Final Audit Report). The Final Audit Report, based upon the recommendations of Dr. Hoffman, notified Petitioner, among other things, that the final determination was that he had received an overpayment of $70,518.26, due to the Medicaid claims not being medically necessary. The Final Audit Report also notified Petitioner, among other things, of the overpayment calculation and statistical formula used by Respondent. Moreover, Petitioner was notified that his type of violation warranted termination from the Medicaid program and a $2,000 fine, but that, in lieu of termination from the Medicaid program, he could continue as a provider by paying a $5,000 fine. In a subsequent letter to Petitioner, regarding clarification of continued participation in the Medicaid program, Ms. Jensen explained that, as a requirement for continued participation in the Medicaid program, in addition to the $5,000 fine, Petitioner must comply with Medicaid policy and Florida Statutes and rules. Petitioner was placed on notice that to continue as a Medicaid provider he must abide by Medicaid billing requirements. Respondent's Final Audit Report did not contain any notice of mediation being available. Section 120.573, Florida Statutes, requires notice of whether mediation (settlement) is available in agency action that affects substantial interests. There is no dispute that Respondent's Final Audit Report affects Petitioner's substantial interests. No evidence was presented that either Petitioner inquired about mediation or that Petitioner or Respondent sought or desired mediation. Moreover, no evidence was presented that Petitioner was harmed or suffered as a result of not receiving the notice. No evidence was presented to support a finding that the basis of the audit findings involved a conspiracy. A finding of fact is made that the basis of the audit findings does not involve a conspiracy between Respondent and its employees and Dr. Jones and Dr. Hoffman and Dr. McClave or anyone else. Respondent did not initiate any disciplinary action against Petitioner's license as a chiropractor and, therefore, Subsections 455.225(1) and 455.621(1), Florida Statutes, are not applicable. No evidence was presented that any criminal action was referred or taken against Petitioner as a result of Respondent's audit. No evidence was presented that Respondent suspected Petitioner of having committed a criminal violation, that a criminal act had been committed by Petitioner, or that Respondent had determined that Petitioner had committed a criminal act.
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 against Henry M. Rubinstein, D.C. and therein: Sustaining the failure of Dr. Rubinstein's medical records, except as to granted prior authorizations, for Medicaid recipients under the age of 21 for the period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96, to demonstrate medical necessity. Sustaining the Final Agency Audit Report, except as indicated and consistent with this Recommended Order. Requiring Dr. Rubinstein to repay overpayments, without interest, in an amount subsequently determined in a proceeding by the Agency for Health Care Administration and within a time period under terms and conditions deemed appropriate. Imposing a fine of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 11th day of April, 2000.
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
