Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein either the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, (Department), or the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, (Agency), its successor agency, operated the Medicaid Program in Florida, a state and federally funded program to provide medical services to indigent and eligible individuals, including children, in Florida. Petitioner, Neonatology Associates, Inc., (NAI), is a provider to the Medicaid Program of the State of Florida, and is located in St. Petersburg, Florida. Its Medicaid provider number is 067920-01. It has been a Medicaid provider for approximately thirty years. Medicaid and Children's Medical Services (CMS) were, at one time, both separate components of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. On July 1, 1993, responsibility for Medicaid was assigned to the Agency for Health Care Administration. Medicaid, and its fiscal agent, FMMIS, are not now and never have been a part of either Children's Medical Services or Regional Perinatal Intensive Care Center (RPICC) and neither CMS nor RPICC have ever been a part of Medicaid or its fiscal agent. RPICC serves only peripherally to Medicaid as a claims transmittal agency or billing agent. That relationship was formalized by a contract which is considered by FMMIS as a billing agent contract. The parties stipulated prior to the hearing that the medical services, which are represented by Petitioner to have been performed were actually performed and rendered, and that all of the patients for the disputed claims are assumed to be Medicaid eligible. The parties stipulated at the hearing that the five claims were submitted by Petitioner to RPICC in a timely manner; that the five claims were received by RPICC within a twelve month period from the date of service; that there was a problem at RPICC which precluded the transmittal of these five claims in a timely manner to the Florida Medicaid Management Information System, (FMMIS), the office with which they were to be filed for payment; and that there was communication by telephone and in person between officials of Petitioner, RPICC, and the Department/Agency, (CMS), in an effort to resolve the filing difficulty. These claims relate to five patients, M.H., M.C., C.J., B.A. and R.W. Claims which are not received by Medicaid or its fiscal agent within twelve months of service may not be paid pursuant to law described in the trade as the "twelve month rule." The five claims in issue here were transmitted electronically to RPICC by NAI's agent, Ms. Chandler, the RPICC billing clerk at All Children's Hospital, where the service was rendered, for subsequent re- transmittal by RPICC to FMMIS. This procedure is authorized by the Agency. However, due to technical problems not further identified, the claims were never received by FMMIS. RPICC, a part of the Department's Children's Medical Services, and operated by the University of Florida, does not adjudicate claims but merely gathers and analyzes neonatology data for statistical reporting. FMMIS, Medicaid's fiscal agent since July 1, 1993, is operated by a private vendor. The contract between Medicaid and the University under which RPICC data services are provided, and that between NAI and Medicaid, which provides for medical services, both contain the same "boiler plate" clauses. Both NAI and RPICC transmit electronic claims to Medicaid for adjudication, but neither is a party of or agent of Medicaid. FMMIS is Medicaid's agent for payment. RPICC data processing services charges are paid to the University of Florida by Children's Medical Services under their contract. Medicaid pays only for the actual medical care provided to indigent mothers and their sick newborn children. NAI has a contract with Medicaid. RPICC has a contract with Medicaid. Children's Medical Services has a contract with RPICC at the University of Florida. These are the only formal agreements involved in this situation. The contract between NAI and Medicaid provides that NAI will submit Medicaid claims "in accordance with program policies." Medicaid policy provides that receipt of electronic claims submission to Medicaid or its fiscal agent, FMMIS, takes place only upon acceptance and confirmation by FMMIS. Acceptance occurs when each claim is assigned its own identification number. Medicaid policy also provides that submittal of a claim to RPICC does not constitute receipt of the claim by Medicaid or its fiscal agent, and submittal of a claim to RPICC does not toll the running of time accounted for under the twelve month rule. The relationship between Medicaid and the RPICC data center may be likened to that of RPICC's being a billing transmittal agent for FMMIS. RPICC does not process claims submitted to it but merely forwards those it receives to the fiscal agent which operates the FMMIS. Medicaid, by letter from Mr. Thomas Arnold, dated March 5, 1990, authorized FMMIS to receive Medicaid claims from RPICC. That letter does no more than offer providers an option to have RPICC bill the fiscal agent for them, thereby creating a "billing agent" status for RPICC. It does not state that submittal of claims by providers to RPICC constitutes filing a claim with Medicaid or the fiscal agent so as to toll the running of the twelve months limit. The Medicaid Physician Provider Handbook made available to all providers expressly states that all claim inquiries be made to Consultec, a private computer services provider. Both Mr. Blasioli and the Agency's regional claims representative noted that NAI did not contact Consultec regarding the computer problems regarding the instant claims prior to the expiration of the twelve month claim filing limit. Neither did NAI make use of RPICC's internal claims tracking system during the period in issue. The evidence establishes that NAI experienced difficulty in submitting the five claims in issue. Nonetheless, within a month of being employed by NAI, its billing administrator advised Medicaid that he had addressed the problem and had established procedures with RPICC's data center to prevent future claims from exceeding the twelve month limit. NAI's difficulty with the five claims in issue were first brought to the attention of Medicaid personnel after the twelve month filing limit had expired. Though the claims in issue here were submitted electronically, NAI could have submitted these claims directly to FMMIS by traditional paper claim, omitting the RPICC channel and its potential for technical problems. It chose not to do so. The "twelve month rule" provides for exceptions which are expressly limited to those claims which are delayed by either legal action or lack of proof of recipient eligibility. An additional exception is afforded claims delayed by "crossovers" with Medicare. The rule does not provide for extension of time due to computer system error unless such error relates to processing errors which arise subsequent to Medicaid's acknowledgment of claim receipt. In essence, to justify an exception to the twelve month rule, the computer error must be Medicaid's. The Medicaid program cannot deviate from federally imposed requirements. Should it do so, it faces the potential loss of federal expenditure reimbursement which constitutes fifty-five percent of all money spent by Florida in its operation of the Medicaid program. The program processes 100,000,000 claims annually from more than 60,000 providers, paying out approximately $6,700,000,000 each year. Even minor exceptions to the rules governing the adjudication process could have extensive impact on and consequences to the program and the benefits it imparts to the indigent health care recipients it serves.
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 denying as untimely Petitioner's five claims in issue. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 22nd day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-3049 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted. Balance accepted as definitions, not Findings of Fact. - 12. Accepted. Merely a restatement of testimony in support of Petitioner's position. Not a proper Finding of Fact. Accepted. Rejected as no more than a comment on the evidence and a statement of party position. - 20. Accepted as a statement of position, but rejected as probative of any material factual issue. 21. - 24. Accepted. Accepted. & 27. Not Findings of Fact but citations of statute. 28. & 29. Accepted. Not Findings of fact but cites of agency rule. A restatement of Handbook matter. Accepted. - 35. Accepted. Accepted but non-probative argument. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. - 43. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of testimony. - 49. Accepted. 50. & 51. Accepted and incorporated herein. 52. - 55. Accepted. 56. - 58. Accepted. 59. & 61. Accepted, but no evidence exists that RPICC's actions constitute receipt of the claim. The evidence of record better suggests that RPICC receives information from providers based upon which it acts as billing agent for the provider and it remains incumbent upon the provider to insure it gets the pertinent information to RPICC in sufficient time for the claim to be billed within the tweleve month constrains. 62. - 65. Rejected as contra to the better evidence of record. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of the issue. - 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. & 9. Accepted. 10. - 14. Accepted. Accepted. - 18. Accepted. 19. & 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of and comment on testimony. & 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. 24. Accepted but not probative of any material issue of issue of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank P. Rainer, Esquire Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster, and Russell, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32310 Mark S. Thomas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3407 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jerome W. Hoffman General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32309
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner received a Medicaid overpayment for claims paid during the audit period, August 1, 1997, through August 25, 1999, and if so, what is the amount that Petitioner is obligated to reimburse to Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program. One of its duties is to recover Medicaid overpayments from physicians providing care to Medicaid recipients. Petitioner is a licensed psychiatrist and an authorized Medicaid provider. His Medicaid provider number is No. 048191200. Chapter Three of the Limitations Handbook describes the procedure codes for reimbursable Medicaid services that physicians may use in billing for services to eligible recipients. The procedure codes are Health Care Financing Administration Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS), Levels 1-3. The procedure codes are based on the Physician's Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) book, published by the American Medical Association. The CPT book, includes HCPCS descriptive terms, numeric identifying codes, and modifiers for reporting services and procedures. The Limitations Handbook further provides that Medicaid reimburses physicians using specific CPT codes. The CPT codes are listed on Medicaid's physician fee schedule. The CPT book includes a section entitled Evaluation and Management (E/M) Services Guidelines. The E/M section classifies medical services into broad categories such as office visits, hospital visits, and consultations. The categories may have subcategories such as two types of office visits (new patient and established patient) and two types of hospital visits (initial and subsequent). The subcategories of E/M services are further classified into levels of E/M services that are identified by specific CPT codes. The classification is important because the nature of a physician's work varies by type of service, place of service, and the patient's status. According to the CPT book, the descriptors for the levels of E/M services recognize seven components, six of which are used in defining the levels of E/M services. They are history, examination, medical decision making, counseling, coordination of care, nature of presenting problem, and time. The most important components in selecting the appropriate level of E/M services are history, examination, and medical decision making. However, since 1992, the CPT book has included time as an explicit factor in selecting the most appropriate level of E/M services. At all times relevant here, Petitioner provided services to Medicaid patients pursuant to a valid Medicaid provider agreement. Therefore, Petitioner was subject to all statutes, rules and policy guidelines that govern Medicaid providers. The Medicaid provider agreement clearly gives a Medicaid provider the responsibility to maintain medical records sufficient to justify and disclose the extent of the goods and services rendered and billings made pursuant to Medicaid policy. This case involves Respondent's Medicaid audit of claims paid to Petitioner for Medicaid psychiatric services during the audit period August 1, 1997, through August 25, 1999 (the audit period). Petitioner provided these services to his Medicaid patients, which constituted approximately 85 to 90 percent of his practice, at his office and at hospitals in the Jacksonville, Florida, area. During the audit period, Petitioner billed Medicaid for services furnished under the following CPT codes and E/M levels of service: (a) 99215, office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient; (b) 99223, initial hospital care per day for the evaluation and management of a patient; (c) 99232, subsequent hospital care per day for the evaluation and management of a patient; (d) 99233, subsequent hospital care per day for the evaluation and management of a patient; (e) 99238, hospital discharge day management; (f) 99254, initial inpatient consultation for a new or established patient; and (g) 90862, other psychiatric service or procedures, pharmacologic management. Except for CPT code 90862, the E/M levels of services billed by Petitioner require either two or all three of the key components as to history, examination, and medical decision- making. The CPT book assigns a typical amount of time that physicians spend with patients for each level of E/M service. The CPT book contains specific psychiatric CPT codes. CPT codes 90804-90815 relate to services provided in the office or other outpatient facility and involve one of two types of psychotherapy. CPT codes 90816-90829 relate to inpatient hospital, partial hospital, or residential care facility involving different types of psychotherapy. CPT codes 90862- 90899 relate to other psychiatric services or procedures. CPT code 90862 specifically includes pharmacologic or medication management; including prescription, use, and review of medication with no more than minimal medical psychotherapy. CPT code 90862 is the only psychiatric procedure code that Petitioner used in billing for the psychiatric services he provided. CPT code 90862 does not have specific requirements as to history, examination, and medical decision-making or a specified amount of time. Most of Petitioner's hospital patients were admitted to the hospital for psychiatric services through the emergency room. As part of the admission process, Petitioner performed psychiatric and physical examinations. However, testimony at hearing that Petitioner generally performed the psychiatric evaluations and the physical examinations on separate days is not persuasive. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that the hospital physical examinations were conducted as part of the routine admission process and appropriately included in claims for the patients' initial hospital care. Some of Petitioner's hospital patients had complicated conditions. Some patients required crisis intervention and/or lacked the ability to perform activities of daily living. The initial hospital care of new hospital patients required Petitioner to take an extensive medical and psychiatric history. Petitioner attended his hospital patients on a daily basis. However, there is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner routinely spent 20-25 minutes with his hospital patients for each subsequent daily visit until the day of discharge. Petitioner used a team approach when attending his hospital patients. On weekdays, the team consisted of Petitioner, a social worker, a music therapist, and the floor nurses. On weekends, Petitioner generally made his rounds with the floor nurses. Petitioner's use of the team approach to treat hospital patients did not change the level of service he provided in managing their medication. Petitioner did not document the time he spent with patients during hospital visits. However, his notations as to each of these visits indicate that, excluding admissions and discharges, the hospital visits routinely involved medication management. Petitioner's testimony that his treatment during subsequent hospital visits involved more than mere medication management is not persuasive. Petitioner also failed to document the time he spent with patients that he treated at his office. He did not present his appointment books as evidence to show the beginning and ending time of the appointments. Petitioner's notes regarding each office visit reflect a good bit of thought. However, without any notation as to time, the office progress notes are insufficient to determine whether Petitioner provided a level of service higher than medication management for established patients. Petitioner and his office manager agreed in advance that, unless Petitioner specified otherwise, every office visit for an established patient would be billed as if it required two of the following: a comprehensive history; a comprehensive examination; and a medical decision making of high complexity. With no documented time for each appointment, Petitioner's records do not reflect that he provided a level of service higher than medication management for the office visits of established patients. Petitioner's testimony to the contrary is not persuasive. Petitioner treated some patients at their place of residence in an adult congregate living facility (ACLF). Respondent does not pay for psychiatric services in such facilities. Instead of entirely denying the claims for ACLF patients, Respondent gave Petitioner credit for providing a lower level of service in a custodial care facility. Sometime in 1999, Respondent made a decision to audit Petitioner's paid claims for the period of time at issue here. After making that decision, Respondent randomly selected the names of 30 Medicaid patients that Petitioner had treated. The 30 patients had 282 paid claims that were included in the "cluster sample." Thereafter, Respondent's staff visited Petitioner's office, leaving a Medicaid provider questionnaire and the list of the 30 randomly selected patients. Respondent's staff requested copies of all medical records for the 30 patients for the audit period. Petitioner completed the Medicaid questionnaire and sent it to Respondent, together with all available medical records for the 30 patients. The medical records included Petitioner's progress notes for office visits. Petitioner did not send Respondent all of the relevant hospital records for inpatient visits. The original hospital records belonged to the hospitals where Petitioner provided inpatient services. Petitioner had not maintained copies of all of the hospital records even though Medicaid policy required him to keep records of all services for which he made Medicaid claims. When Respondent received Petitioner's records, one of Respondent's registered nurses, Claire Balbo, reviewed the records to determine whether Petitioner had provided documentation to support each paid claim. Ms. Balbo made handwritten notes on the records of claims that were not supported by documentation. Ms. Balbo reviewed the documentation in the records between February 10, 2000, and March 7, 2000. Next, one of Respondent's investigators, Art Williams, reviewed the records. Mr. Williams made his review on or about January 23, 2001. In some instances, Mr. Williams changed some of Petitioner's CPT codes from an inappropriate hospital inpatient or office visit procedure code to a psychiatric procedure code with a lower reimbursement rate. Additionally, Mr. Williams noted Petitioner's visits in ACLF's that, according to Medicaid policy, were not reimbursable. Finally, Mr. Williams noted that Petitioner occasionally made several claims on one line of the claim form contrary to Medicaid policy. Mr. Williams made these changes to the CPT codes based on applicable Medicaid policy. His review of the audit documents and patient records did not involve a determination as medical necessity or the appropriate level of service. A peer reviewer makes determinations as to medical necessity and the appropriate level of service for each paid claim in the random sample of 30 patients. Respondent then sent the records to Dr. Melody Agbunag, a psychiatrist who conducted a peer review of Petitioner's records. Dr. Agbunag's primary function was to determine whether the services that Petitioner provided were medically necessary and, if so, what the appropriate level of service was for each paid claim. Dr. Agbunag conducted the peer review between June 8, 2001, and August 29, 2001. She agreed with Respondent's staff regarding the adjustments to the procedure codes that corresponded with the level of service reflected in the medical records. When Dr. Agbunag returned the records to Respondent, Ms. Balbo calculated the monetary difference between the amount that Medicaid paid Petitioner for each claim and the amount that Medicaid should have paid based on Dr. Agbunag's review. The difference indicated that Respondent had overpaid Petitioner for claims that in whole or in part were not covered by Medicaid. Respondent sent Petitioner a Preliminary Agency Audit Report (PAAR) dated December 27, 2001. The PAAR stated that Petitioner had been overpaid $54,595.14. The PAAR stated that Petitioner could furnish additional information or documentation that might serve to reduce the overpayment. Petitioner responded to the PAAR in a letter dated February 28, 2001. According to the letter, Petitioner challenged the preliminary determinations in the PAAR and advised that he was waiting on additional patient records from a certain hospital. In a letter dated June 30, 2002, Petitioner advised Respondent that he generally spends 15-20 minutes with his hospital inpatients. The letter does not refer to any additional hospital records. Petitioner's office manager sent Respondent a letter dated August 1, 2002. The letter discusses every service that Petitioner provided to the 30 patients during the audit period. Some of these services were not included in the random "cluster sample" because Medicaid had not paid for them during the audit period. According to the August 1, 2002, letter, Petitioner's office manager attached some of the patient records that Petitioner had not previously provided to Respondent. The additional documentation related to multiple claims involving several of Petitioner's hospital and office patients. Sometime after receiving the additional documentation, Dr. Agbunag conducted another peer review. She did not change her prior determination regarding the level of service as to any paid claim. In 2003, Vicki Remick, Respondent's investigator, reviewed the audit, the patient records, and all correspondence. Her review included, but was not limited to, the determination of the appropriate CPT code and amount of reimbursement, taking into consideration Medicaid policy and Dr. Agbunag's findings regarding medical necessity and the level of care for each paid claim. On or about October 1, 2003, Respondent issued the Final Agency Audit Report (FAAR). The FAAR informed Petitioner that he had been overpaid $39,055.34 for Medicaid claims that, in whole or in part, were not covered by Medicaid. The FAAR included a request for Petitioner to pay that amount for the overpayment. The FAAR concluded, as to some patients, that Petitioner's documentation did not support the CPT codes that Petitioner used to bill and that Respondent used to pay for services. Thus, Respondent "down graded" the billing code to a lesser amount. As a result, the difference between the amount paid and the amount that should have been paid was an overpayment. The FAAR also stated that Petitioner billed and received payment for some undocumented services. In each such instance, Respondent considered the entire amount paid as an overpayment. The FAAR indicated that Petitioner billed Medicaid for some services at acute care hospital psychiatric units without documenting the medical records as to the appropriate CPT codes and medical illness diagnosis codes. Respondent adjusted the payments for these services to the appropriate psychiatric CPT codes. According to the FAAR, Petitioner billed and received payment for services which only allowed one unit of service per claim line. For this audit, Respondent allowed charges for the additional units of service where Petitioner's documentation for the additional dates of service supported the services allowed by the peer reviewer. The FAAR stated that Petitioner billed for psychiatric services at an ACLF or an assisted living facility. Medicaid normally does not pay for such services. However, in this case, Respondent adjusted the claims to a domiciliary or custodial care visit. Sometime after Petitioner received the FAAR, Petitioner sent Respondent some additional patients' medical records. Some of the records were duplicates of documents that Petitioner previously had furnished to Respondent. Other records were for services that may have been provided during the audit period but which were not a part of the random sample because Medicaid did not pay for them during relevant time frame. Respondent requested Dr. James R. Edgar to conduct a second peer review of Petitioner's correspondence and patient records to determine the appropriate level of service. Respondent provided Dr. Edgar with a copy of the patients' medical records, a copy of Respondent's worksheets, including Dr. Agbunag's notes, and the appropriate policy handbooks. Respondent requested Dr. Edgar to make changes in the level of service as he deemed appropriate. Dr. Edgar performed his review between July 25, 2004, and July 29, 2004, making an independent determination regarding issues of medical necessity and level of care. Initially, as to every disputed paid claim, Dr. Edgar agreed with Dr. Agbunag that Petitioner's patient records were insufficient to justify the procedure code and higher level of service claimed by Petitioner. Specifically, Dr. Edgar presented persuasive evidence that a number of paid claims, which Petitioner billed under CPT codes 99215, 99223, 99232, 99233, and 99238, were properly adjusted to CPT code 90862. Petitioner was not entitled to bill at a higher level of reimbursement because he failed to adequately document as to history, examination, medical decision-making, and time. Dr. Edgar agreed that, upon reconsideration, Petitioner's claim for Recipient 14, date of service September 7, 1998, billed under CPT code 99238, was appropriate. As to Recipient 1, date of service March 9, 1999, Petitioner was not entitled to bill for services using CPT code 99255, initial inpatient consultation for a new or established patient. CPT code 99222, initial hospital care, per day, for the E/M of a new or established patient, was more appropriate because Petitioner provided the consultation for one of his established patients. His services included a comprehensive history, a comprehensive examination, and medical decision making of moderate complexity. An independent analysis of the selection of the random sample, the statistical formula used by Respondent, and the statistical calculation used to determine the overpayment, confirms the conclusions in the FAAR. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent properly extrapolated the results from the sample to the total population. Out of a population of 222 recipients and a population of 2,123 claims, 30 recipients selected at random with 282 paid claims capture most of the characteristics of the total population. In this case, the statistical evidence indicates that 29 of the 30 recipients had overpayments. The odds that 29 out of 30 randomly selected recipients would have overpayments, if no overpayments existed, are greater than the odds of winning the Florida Lotto Quick Pick three weeks in a row. In fact, within a statistical certainly, the amount claimed in this cause based on the records of 30 recipients is lower than the reimbursement amount that Petitioner would owe if all records were reviewed. Respondent incurred costs during the investigation of this matter. The amount of those costs was not known at the time of the formal hearing.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order finding that Petitioner owes Respondent for an overpayment in the amount of $39,055.34, less an adjustment for the September 7, 1998 claim for Recipient 14, plus interest. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 25th day of March, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Alan Levine, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Know Building III 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Debora E. Fridie, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Mail Station 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 John D. Buchanan, Jr., Esquire Henry, Buchanan, Hudson, Suber & Carter, P.A. 117 South Gadsden Street Post Office Box 1049 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Petitioner received Medicaid overpayments, and, if so, what is the aggregate amount of the overpayments.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent, the Agency for Health Care Administration, is the single state agency charged with administration of the Medicaid program in Florida under Section 409.907, Florida Statutes. Petitioner, The Doctor's Office, was a Florida corporation approved by the Agency to provide group Medicaid services. At all times relevant to this matter, Petitioner was owned entirely by non-physicians who employed salaried physicians to provide Medicaid services. Petitioner, at all times relevant to this matter, offered physician services to Medicaid beneficiaries pursuant to a contract with the Agency under provider number 371236P-00. Petitioner, pursuant to the specific terms in the contract with the Agency, agreed to abide by the Florida Administrative Code, Florida Statutes, policies, procedures, manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program, and Federal laws and regulations. Petitioner, pursuant to its contract with the Agency, agreed to only seek reimbursement from the Medicaid program for services that were "medically necessary" and "Medicaid compensable." The Audit In mid-1996, the Agency, pursuant to its statutory responsibility, advised Petitioner that it intended to audit Petitioner's paid Medicaid claims for the alleged medical services it provided between July 1, 1994 and June 30, 1996. In September 1996, the Agency conducted an initial audit site visit, and randomly selected 61 patient files for review. The complete patient files, provided by Petitioner, were reviewed by Sharon Dewey, a registered nurse consultant and Agency employee, as well as Dr. Solenberger, a physician consultant and Agency employee. In accordance with its procedure, the Agency determined that Petitioner had submitted a total of 580 claims for reimbursement relating to the 61 patient files and had received full payment from the Medicaid program for each claim. On March 3, 1997, the Agency issued a Preliminary Agency Audit Report (PAAR), and advised Petitioner that it had over-billed Medicaid and received an overpayment from the program. Shortly thereafter, the Agency auditors, Dr. Solenberger and Ms. Dewey, met with Frank Colavecchio, Petitioner's Corporate Representative, and discussed the Medicaid violations alleged in the review. During the meeting, the Agency requested Mr. Colavecchio to instruct Petitioner's staff physicians to review their records and provide a written rebuttal to the Agency's initial determinations. Within days, and prior to any further action, the Agency placed the audit on indefinite hold. The Agency decided to delay the audit until certain proposed legislation relating to peer review and the integrity of the Medicaid reimbursement program was enacted. Two years later, Section 409.9131, Florida Statutes, was enacted during the 1999 legislative session and became law. Shortly thereafter, in 1999, the Agency hired Dr. Larry Deeb, a board-certified, practicing pediatrician, to perform a peer review of Petitioner's practices and procedures. Dr. Deeb has performed similar medical records reviews for the Medicaid program since 1981 and possesses a thorough understanding of CPT coding and the EPSDT requirements. Dr. Deeb received the medical files provided by Petitioner, and reviewed each patient file in the random sample, including the medical services and Medicaid-related claim records. On November 11, 1999, Dr. Deeb completed his peer review of 564 of the 580 claims provided in the random sample and forwarded his findings to the Agency. Dr. Deeb advised the Agency that 16 reimbursement claims involved adult patients and he therefore did not review them. Utilizing Dr. Deebs findings, the Agency employed appropriate and valid auditing and statistical methods, and calculated the total Medicaid overpayment that Petitioner received during the two year audit period. On July 17, 2000, approximately four years after the original audit notification, the Agency issued its Final Agency Audit Report (FAAR). The Agency advised Petitioner that, based upon its review of the random sample of 61 patients for whom Petitioner submitted 580 claims for payment between 1994 and 1996, Petitioner received $875,261.03 in total overpayment from the Medicaid program during the audit period. Petitioner denied the overpayment and requested a formal administrative hearing. Following the initial commencement of the final hearing in this matter in December 2001, Dr. Deeb, again, reviewed the disputed claims and modified his opinion relating to 6 claims. Thereafter, the Agency recalculated the alleged overpayment and demanded Petitioner to pay $870,748.31. The Allegations The Agency alleges that specific claims submitted by Petitioner, which were paid by the Medicaid program, fail to comply with specific Medicaid requirements and therefore must be reimbursed. Since its inception, the Medicaid program has required providers to meet the Medicaid program's policies and procedures as set forth in federal, state, and local law. To qualify for payment, it is the provider's duty to ensure that all claims "[a]re provided in accord with applicable provisions of all Medicaid rules, regulations, handbooks, and policies and in accordance with . . . state . . . law." Section 409.913(5)(e), Florida Statutes (1993). Medicaid manuals are available to all Providers. Petitioner, as a condition of providing Medicaid services pursuant to the Medicaid program, is bound by the requirements and restrictions specified in the manuals, and under the contract, is required to reimburse the Medicaid program for any paid claims found to be in violation of Medicaid policies and procedures. The evidence presented at hearing established that Petitioner frequently violated various Medicaid policies and procedures. First, Petitioner repeatedly failed to comply with Section 10.9 of the Medicaid Physician's Provider Handbook, (MPPH), and Sections 409.905(9), 409.913(5)(e), 409.913(7)(e), and 409.913(7)(f), (1993, 1994 Supp. 1995, and 1996), Florida Statutes, which require all medical services to be rendered by, or supervised by a physician, and attested to by the physician's signature. Medical records reflecting services for paid claims must be physician signature certified and dated, or the services are not defined as physician's services. In addition, Petitioner routinely failed to correctly document the provision of certain physician's assistant (P.A.) Medicaid services that require the personal supervision of a physician or osteopath. See Chapter 1 of the Physician Assistant Coverage and Limitations Handbook, March 1995, and Appendix D (Glossary) in the Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook, HCFA-1500 (HCFA-1500). In addition, Petitioner failed to comply with Medicaid regulations that require an approved physician to be present in the facility when certain P.A. services are delivered and to attest to it by signature within twenty-four hours of service. See Section 11.1 of the MPPH, effective July 1994, and Sections 409.905, and 409.913 (1993, 1994 Supp., 1995, and 1996 Supp.), Florida Statutes. The evidence presented at hearing also demonstrates that Petitioner repeatedly violated specific record keeping requirements located in Section 10.9 of the MPPH, Sections 10.6 and 11.5 of the Medicaid EPSDT Provider Handbook (EPSDT), and Sections 409.913(5)(e), 409.913(7)(e), and 409.913(7)(f), (1993, 1994 Supp., 1995, and 1996), Florida Statutes. In addition, the Agency demonstrated that Petitioner occasionally failed to document support for the necessity of certain services or simply billed for services that were not medically necessary. As indicated, Medicaid policy limits a physician to bill only for services that are medically necessary and defines the circumstances and varying levels of care authorized. In fact, Section 11.1 of the MPPH, effective July 1994, provides in part: The physician services program pays for services performed by a licensed physician or osteopath within the scope of the practice of medicine or osteopathy as defined by state law . . . . The services in this program must be performed for medical necessity for diagnosis and treatment of an illness on an eligible Medicaid recipient. Delivery of all services in this handbook must be done by or under the personal supervision of a physician or osteopath . . . at any place of service . . . . Each service type listed has special policy requirements that apply specifically to it. These must be adhered to for payment. The manual further provides clear guidelines defining authorized services for reimbursement which Petitioner apparently overlooked. For example, the manual defines the four types of medical history exams that Medicaid providers may conduct, the nature of the problems presented, and the appropriate and authorized tests. The manual also identifies the varying degrees of medical decision-making complexity related to Medicaid services and provides instructions relating to the method of selecting the correct evaluation and management code for billing. Petitioner consistently violated coding restrictions. Moreover, the Medicaid policy manual also outlines the specific procedures and billing requirements necessary for seeking payment for medical services including the early periodic screening for diagnosis and treatment (EPSDT) services. Chapter 10 and 11 of the MPPH specifically state that services that do not include all listed components of the EPSDT are not defined as an EPSDT, and upon audit, the Agency re-calculated Petitioner's medical services at the appropriate procedure code. Stipulation Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the parties stipulated that certain paid claims were correctly determined by the Agency to be overpayments. Specifically, the parties agreed that portions of samples 1, 3, 14, 21, 28, 41, 46, 47, 51, 53, and 56 could not be claimed for reimbursement since lab services which are part of an office visit reimbursement and/or lab service fees performed by an independent outside lab are not permitted. In addition, the parties agreed that specific portions of samples 1, 13, 14, 27, 28, 33, 35, 43, 46, 47, 52, 53, and 55 could not be claimed since Modifier 26 billing, the professional component, is only appropriate when the service is rendered in a hospital and Petitioner's services were rendered in an office. Pediatric Sample With regard to the random sample of pediatric files, upon careful review, the evidence presented at hearing sufficiently demonstrates that Petitioner was overpaid the following amounts on the following paid claims for the following reasons: The prolonged physician's services billed to Medicaid were not documented as having been provided or medically necessary. Cluster Number Date of Service Procedure Code Billed and Paid Overpayment 1 1/18/1996 99354 $ 36.64 1 5/14/1996 99354 $ 36.64 13 9/25/1995 99354 $ 36.64 19 9/28/1994 99354 $ 39.50 21 12/18/1995 99354 $ 36.64 28 3/06/1995 99354 $ 36.64 42 6/04/1996 99354 $ 36.64 43 12/19/1994 99354 $ 36.64 47 9/28/1994 99354 $ 39.50 47 10/17/1995 99354 $ 36.64 51 4/05/1995 99354 $ 36.64 53 11/02/1995 99354 $ 36.64 56 5/01/1996 99354 $ 36.64 The level of care billed to and reimbursed by Medicaid at the 99215 office visit procedure code level was improper since the level of care provided was at the 99213 office visit procedure code level. Cluster Number Date of Service Overpayment 1 9/14/1995 $ 34.14 1 1/18/1996 $ 34.14 1 5/14/1996 $ 34.14 33 9/28/1994 $ 20.00 47 10/17/1995 $ 34.14 The level of care billed and paid at the 99215 office visit procedure code level was improper since the level of care that was provided was at the 99214 office visit procedure code level. Cluster Number Date of Service Overpayment 53 5/31/1995 $ 21.69 The level of care billed and paid at the 99205 office visit procedure code level was improper since the level of care that was provided was at the 99204 office visit procedure code level. Cluster Number Date of Service Overpayment 25 7/27/1994 $ 2.00 The level of care that was billed and paid at the 99205 office visit procedure code level was improper since the level of care that was provided was at the 99203 office visit procedure code level. Cluster Number Date of Service Overpayment 35 5/11/1995 $ 37.96 51 12/08/1994 $ 15.00 55 11/21/1995 $ 37.96 58 9/22/1995 $ 37.96 The level of care that was billed and paid at the 99215 office visit procedure code level was improper since the level of care that was provided was at the 99204 office visit procedure code level. Cluster Number Date of Service Overpayment 43 12/11/1994 ($ 3.00) credit The level of care that was billed and paid at the 99205 office visit procedure code level was improper since the medical services provided and documentation supported an EPSDT visit. Cluster Number Date of Service Overpayment 53 2/06/1995 $ 16.53 The required components of the EPSDT were not documented as being performed at the office visit that had been claimed and paid as an EPSDT and therefore, the difference between the EPSDT payment received and the value of the procedure code for the documented level of office visit that occurred (i.e., 99214, 99213, 99212, 99211, or 99203), is deemed an overpayment. Cluster Number Date of Service Level of Visit Overpayment 1 7/28/1995 99213 $ 39.82 3 6/28/1995 99213 $ 39.82 5 3/03/1995 99203 $ 21.43 6 7/07/1994 99213 $ 5.00 10 8/17/1995 99212 $ 43.82 12 1/31/1996 99204 $ 0.00 14 5/31/1995 99213 $ 39.82 18 10/04/1994 99213 $ 5.00 18 1/29/1996 99214 $ 27.37 20 8/25/1994 99213 $ 5.00 21 12/11/1995 99214 $ 27.37 29 8/17/1994 99212 $ 9.00 Cluster Number Date of Service Level of Visit Overpayment 29 9/06/1995 99213 $ 39.82 40 7/25/1994 99203 $ 0.00 41 5/06/1996 99214 $ 27.37 46 9/19/1994 99213 $ 5.00 46 10/19/1995 99213 $ 39.82 47 11/02/1994 99213 $ 5.00 51 9/07/1995 99213 $ 39.82 53 7/10/1995 99213 $ 39.82 53 1/19/1995 99213 $ 39.82 59 5/02/1996 99203 $ 43.39 Adult Samples At hearing, Petitioner disputed all of the Agency's findings relating to patients over the age of 21 and objected to Dr. Deeb, a pediatrician, performing any review of their files. While Dr. Deeb is not the appropriate peer to review adult patient files, the following adult claims did not require substantive peer review and resulted in overpayment due to the stated reason: There were not any medical records in existence to indicate that any medical services were performed. Cluster Number Date of Service Procedure Code Billed and Paid Overpayment 2 2/20/1995 99215 $ 53.00 2 7/11/1995 99215 $ 59.14 2 8/09/1995 99215 $ 57.14 2 9/07/1995 99213 $ 23.00 2 10/11/1995 99213 $ 23.00 2 1/02/1996 99213 $ 23.00 2 3/22/1996 73560/Rad.Ex. $ 16.36 2 4/01/1996 99215 $ 57.14 2 4/05/1996 99213 $ 23.00 2 4/23/1996 99213 $ 23.00 15 2/16/1996 99213 $ 23.00 15 2/19/1996 99215 $ 57.14 16 5/14/1996 Blood Count $ 8.00 Cluster Number Date of Service Procedure Code Billed and Paid Overpayment 16 5/14/1996 UA $ 3.00 16 5/14/1996 99215 $ 57.14 23 7/28/1994 99213 $ 23.00 23 5/09/1995 72069/26 Rad.Ex. $ 6.98 23 5/09/1995 72069/Rad.Ex. $ 17.45 23 10/20/1995 99213 $ 23.00 34 4/24/1996 99214 $ 35.45 57 11/17/1995 99215 $ 59.14 60 4/10/1996 99215 $ 57.14 61 5/22/1995 99213 $ 23.00 The medical records failed to contain the required physician's signature and date authenticating the fact that the services billed were performed by either P.A. Olsen or P.A. Avidon under physician supervision. The services provided by the non-physician employee were reviewed and down-coded by the Agency to the appropriate level physician's office visit code. Cluster Number Date of Service Proc. Code Pd./ P. Code Allowed Overpayment 2 6/30/1995 99215/99212 $ 36.14 2 7/20/1995 99215/99213 $ 34.14 2 7/28/1995 99215/99213 $ 34.14 2 9/05/1995 99215/99212 $ 36.14 8 4/17/1995 99205/99203 $ 35.96 17 3/27/1995 99205/99203 $ 35.96 23 5/09/1995 99215/99213 $ 32.14 23 6/09/1995 99215/99213 $ 32.14 34 4/23/1996 99205/99203 $ 35.96 The medical records failed to contain the required physician signature authenticating the fact that the services were provided by a physician. The services provided were reviewed and down-coded by the Agency to the appropriate level physician's office visit code. Procedure Code Cluster Number Date of Service Billed and Paid Overpayment 2 6/14/1995 99215/99211 $ 45.14 16 5/15/1996 99215/99211 $ 45.14 61 5/05/1995 99205/99204 $ 14.53 The provider improperly sought payment for lab services that were part of the office visit reimbursement and/or lab services performed by an independent outside lab. Cluster Number Date of Service Procedure Billed and Paid Overpayment 2 3/08/1996 UA $ 3.00 2 4/03/1996 UA $ 3.00 15 2/08/1996 UA $ 3.00 16 5/15/1996 Blood Count $ 8.50 16 5/15/1996 Blood Count $ 8.00 The provider improperly sought payment for Modifier 26 billings (professional component) which are only appropriate when the service is rendered in a hospital. Cluster Number Date of Service Procedure Billed and Paid Overpayment 2 2/17/1995 Radiologic exam $ 6.98 2 6/14/1995 Radiologic exam $ 7.20 8 4/17/1995 Tympanometry $ 9.00 16 5/13/1996 Radiologic exam $ 5.45 16 5/15/1996 Radiologic exam $ 6.98 In addition to the policy and procedural violations, Petitioner, in egregious violation of the Medicaid program, admittedly submitted Medicaid claims for the services of specialist physicians (such as an allergist, OB/GYN, podiatrist, psychologists, and ophthalmologists) not within its Provider group, collected Medicaid funds based on those claims, and reimbursed the respective specialist. While Petitioner's corporate representative, Mr. Colavecchio, was admittedly responsible for the coding and billing of the Medicaid services submitted for reimbursement, he was minimally aware of the Medicaid policy requirements and possessed limited working knowledge of CPT coding and EPSDT billing. In addition, Petitioner's employees, Dr. Keith Wintermeyer and Dr. Marcia Malcolm, were only moderately familiar with the CPT coding and EPSDT component requirements. They provided little input to Petitioner regarding CPT coding and the sufficiency of certain physician's services relating to EPSDT billing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency re-calculate the overpayment consistent with the Findings of Fact, and include only those identified violations in the cluster samples of the adult patient files, and issue a Final Order requiring Petitioner to reimburse, within 60 days, the Agency for the Medicaid overpayments plus any interest that may accrue after entry of the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 14th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Felker-Little, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Charles D. Jamieson, Esquire Ward, Damon & Posner, P.A. 4420 Beacon Circle West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) should enroll the Petitioner, Oscar Sansoni, as a Medicaid provider of support coordination services.
Findings Of Fact In 1990, the former Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) preliminarily confirmed a report of abuse or neglect against the Petitioner, Oscar Sansoni (report No. 90-045389). The Petitioner asked that the report be expunged and asked for formal administrative proceedings when HRS denied his request (DOAH Case 90-4332C). Upon commencement of the hearing in DOAH Case 90-4332C, the Petitioner withdrew his request for expunction "upon condition that such withdrawal would not prejudice his right to request, at a later date, further proceeding on the issue of an exemption from disqualification for employment." A Recommended Order of Dismissal was entered in the case on October 26, 1990, on the basis of the Petitioner's withdrawal of his expunction request. On August 6, 1991, a Final Order was entered on the basis of the Recommended Order of Dismissal; it denied the expunction request and confirmed the report. The Petitioner was initially certified by HRS to provide support coordination services under Florida's Medicaid waiver program in November 1993. He provided those services in District 6 and in District 14, but not without some problems in both districts. The first survey of the Petitioner conducted in District 14 on September 21, 1994, revealed five major areas of concern: support plans did not authorize services; (2) cost plans (plans of care) did not authorize purchase of services; (3) case notes did not substantiate billing; (4) case notes were not in sufficient detail; and (5) planning prior to changing client support was inadequate. As a result, District 14 withdrew the Petitioner's ability to process billings for 90 days. The first survey of the Petitioner conducted in District 6 on October 21, 1994, revealed most of the same concerns as in District 14. (The exception was that the Petitioner was not criticized for inadequate planning.) To the Petitioner's credit, he improved following the initial surveys. A follow-up survey conducted in District 14 on January 24, 1995, revealed that the Petitioner was in full compliance. A follow-up survey in District 6 also revealed progress, but the Petitioner was not considered to be providing better than adequate services there. On December 29, 1994, the Petitioner signed a verification that he had obtained or would soon be obtaining a background screening, as required of all HRS Developmental Services Medicaid waiver support coordinators. During a routine review on or about May 24, 1995, HRS discovered that the Petitioner had not yet obtained or even applied for a background screening. HRS conducted a background screening of the Petitioner which revealed the confirmed report of abuse or neglect, report No. 90-045389. As a result, HRS took action to revoke the Petitioner's Medicaid waiver certification. The outcome of the revocation proceeding is not clear from the record, but it appears from the evidence that the Petitioner was required to relinquish 34 District 6 case files for handling by other support coordinators. Review of those files revealed that 15 of the 34 had no support plans or overdue support plans. Most of the case files had no case notes. The Petitioner asked for an extension of time until June 5, 1995, to submit missing case notes and support plans. On June 9, 1995, he submitted some but not all of the missing case notes and support plans. More missing case notes and support plans were submitted on July 27, 1995, along with billings for support services. Still more missing case notes and support plans with additional billings for support services were submitted on January 12, 1996. The Petitioner let it be known that he was spacing the submission of these documents to optimally serve his cash-flow needs. District 6 reviewed the Petitioner's case notes and support plans after January 12, 1996, and found them to be extremely unprofessional, contrary to state statute and rule relative to confidentiality, and lacking in substance relative to the implementation of goals on the support plan. Many support plans were late. The Petitioner failed to comply with many of the assurances required of Medicaid waiver support coordinators. At a later date, the Petitioner applied for Medicaid waiver certification on behalf of Dare to Dream, Inc. HRS denied the application, and the Petitioner requested formal administrative proceedings. The case was referred to DOAH, where it was given Case No. 96-3199. Case No. 96-3199 was set for final hearing on September 20, 1996, but HRS filed a Motion for Suggestion of Mootness on September 17, 1996. In the motion, HRS conceded that the Petitioner met all of the certification criteria set out in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-8.200(12)(b)20 and that there was no valid, legal ground for denying certification. It gave assurance that HRS would issue the Medicaid waiver certification letter "within the next week." The Petitioner initially opposed the motion "out of frustration" but withdrew his opposition at a telephone hearing held on the motion on September 18, 1996, and an Order Dismissing Proceeding, Relinquishing Jurisdiction, and Closing File was entered on September 19, 1996, returning jurisdiction to HRS for issuance of the Medicaid waiver certification. HRS issued a one- year Medicaid waiver certification to Dare to Dream, Inc., on September 18, 1996. The letter transmitting the one-year certification to Petitioner explained that, effective January 1, 1995, all providers of Developmental Services/Home and Community Based Services of Support Coordination were required to have a Medicaid provider number. HRS agreed to forward the Petitioner's completed application for a provider number to the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA). When HRS forwarded the Petitioner's application for enrollment as a Medicaid provider, HRS included its evaluation of the Petitioner's previous performance and a strong recommendation that the application be denied. AHCA received the Petitioner's application on October 31, 1996. On January 9, 1997, AHCA advised the Petitioner that it intended to deny the application: (1) because, contrary to representations in the application, the Petitioner's Medicaid waiver certification had been revoked, not suspended, by HRS in May 1995; (2) because the Medicaid waiver certification had not been restored; (3) because the Petitioner had on his record a confirmed report of abuse or neglect; and (4) because, for the foregoing reasons, as well as the Petitioner's performance history as a provider of support coordination services for HRS, AHCA concurred with HRS' recommendation that the application be denied. The Petitioner, in his rebuttal, explained: (1) that he understood his Medicaid waiver certification to have been suspended, not revoked; and (2) that, besides, it was restored by the time of his application. He also had admitted in evidence documentation relating to DOAH Case Nos. 90-4332C and 96-3199 (which provide some of the support for Findings 1 and 10-13, supra.) However, the Petitioner put on no evidence contrary to the other grounds for HRS' recommendation that the application be denied.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order denying the Petitioner's application for enrollment as a Medicaid provider. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of January, 1998, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack B. Pugh, Esquire Suite 1080 1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Gordon Scott, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether Respondent's certification as a support coordinator under the Medicaid waiver program should be renewed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating persons to be certified as support coordinators under the home and community based services program. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent, Leonel Mederos, was certified as a support coordinator and did business through his company, Las Americas Support Services. For the period 1992 through 1995, Karlene Peyton was the program administrator for the Department's developmental services program which was responsible for the support coordinators under the home and community based services program. The developmental services program provides services to clients developmentally disabled, e.g., persons who are mentally retarded, have autism, cerebral palsy or spina bifida. Developmentally disabled persons are entitled to receive benefits such as supportive living services, employment services, training services, residential services, and case management services. The Department administers such services pursuant to Chapter 393, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10F-13,Florida Administrative Code. As part of the system to provide services to the developmentally disabled, the home and community based services program (HCBSP) was established under the Medicaid program. This program adds a support coordinator who is not employed by the Department but who serves as a case manager for the client. In order to qualify under the HCBSP, clients must be Medicaid eligible and have the specified range of disability. For example, a client who is mentally retarded would be evaluated based upon their IQ level and deficiencies in activities of daily living. In the instant case, the persons providing assistance or case management to the developmentally disabled client are designated as waiver support coordinators. The waiver support coordinators are Medicaid providers. When the Department established the waiver support coordinators program, it promulgated statewide policies and written guidelines to regulate the system. It also developed district specific guidelines or policies. One policy, for example, is the limitation on the number of cases assigned to each support coordinator. A waiver support coordinator may not have more than thirty-five (35) clients. Respondent had been an employee with the Department at the time the waiver support coordinators program was established in Dade County. He left the agency to become, and was certified as, a Medicaid waiver support coordinator under the home and community based services program. Respondent qualified Las Americas Support Services as an entity through which waiver support coordinators might work. In order to become certified Respondent was required to complete training requirements related to statewide and district training. Topics covered in the training included Department rules and policies related to the Medicaid waiver program, support plans, plan implementation, services, record keeping, documentation of services and billing, and the use of the Department's computer system. As part of the application package completed on or about May 20, 1993, Respondent executed assurances which are part of the Medicaid provider agreement. The assurances are Respondent's representation to the Department that he will comply with specific conditions. These assurances provided, in pertinent part: 3. All individuals employed as support coordinators will meet the minimum require- ments of a bachelors degree in a human service field and two years of experience with individuals who have a developmental disability. Evidence of these qualifications will be maintained in each individual's employee personnel file. * * * 6. The provider shall maintain financial records in accordance with a recognized system of accounting to accurately reflect the details of the business and shall undergo an annual financial audit of its support coordination program, which may be part of an agency-wide audit. * * * 21. The provider assures that it will maintain the client central record in accordance with 393, F.S. * * * 24. The provider assures compliance with requirements of Chapter 393, F.S. and the proposed DS/Home and Community Based Services Waiver Rule, 10F-13, F.A.C. * * * 27. The provider assures that no more [than] thirty-five individuals will be assigned to a support coordinator who is serving Developmental Services HCBS waiver clients. * * * 29. The provider understands that payment for independent support coordination services is made from state and federal funds and that any falsification or concealment of a material fact may be prosecuted under state and federal laws. The provider further understands that such falsification or concealment is a breach of the DS/HCBS certification and may result in cancellation of same by the department. * * * 31. The provider agrees to return to the department any overpayments received that were disbursed to the provider by the depart- ment. In the event that the department discovers an overpayment has been made, the department will notify the provider of such a finding. Except for provided in No.32 below, the provider agrees to make repayment within thirty (30) days of recipt (sic) of such notification unless the parties are able to agree upon an alternative schedule. Respondent attended and completed the statewide training portion for certification in June, 1993. He completed the district training (with information pertinent specifically to District 11) in July, 1993. He was fully certified to perform as a support coordinator from July 1, 1993 through July 1, 1994. In June, 1994, as part of the recertification process, Respondent executed another assurances agreement. Subsequently, his certification was renewed for the period September 1, 1994 through February 28, 1995. This second assurances agreement, while not identical to the first, in substance had the same provisions as those outlined above in paragraph 17 above. For each client to be served by a waiver support coordinator, a support plan must be developed that identifies the specific services needed by the client. Such plan is developed with input from the client, the client's family, as well as the service providers who are to provide the needed services. The driving force to establish the support plan must be the client's individual needs. Once the support plan is in place the services coordinator must verify that the services are properly and satisfactorily delivered to the client. The coordinator must keep accurate case notes reflecting the date, time, and description of all services provided to the client. The documentation maintained by the services coordinator serves to verify that the services were delivered. As part of the process, the coordinator must also have a cost plan which identifies the expenses budgeted for each service the client is to receive. Every cost plan must be submitted to the Department for approval, and only services which have been approved may be billed by the service coordinator. Every support coordinator is required to maintain case notes of all activities performed on behalf of a client. No activity may be billed to the Medicaid waiver program which is not supported by case notes reflecting the identity of the client, the date of the service, the time of the service and the description of the service. At all times material to this case, the support coordinators billed time based upon quarter hour increments. For example, one through fifteen minutes was billed as one unit, sixteen through 30 minutes as two units, and so on for a total of 4 units per hour. Each support coordinator was responsible for logging their billing units directly into the Department's computer system. Only services which have been approved may be billed and may not include administrative duties such as faxing, copying, transferring case records or other office functions which are included in the rate paid to support coordinators. Each support coordinator is subject to a review wherein Department personnel audit client records to determine compliance with the Medicaid program policy requirements. In November, 1994, Department personnel were reviewing the qualifications of two persons employed as support coordinators through Respondent's company. When Respondent could not produce either the original degrees or authenticated transcripts for the two coordinators (which would evidence the requisite degree required for the coordinators), Respondent was instructed to return all case records assigned to the two workers to the Department. When the case records were returned, the Department discovered billing discrepancies. For example, it discovered Respondent had overbilled for certain clients and had billed for services not allowed. When this was uncovered, the Department elected to perform an in-depth review of the Respondent's business record keeping. The materials reviewed were from Respondent who was responsible for their origin and accuracy. From November 1994 through February 1995, the Department attempted to reconcile Respondent's case records with the billing which had been submitted to the agency by the Respondent. As a result of this audit, it is found the Respondent overbilled by billing more units that were documented. The Respondent overbilled by billing for services which are not allowed and had not been approved. The Respondent overbilled by billing for services provided by an unqualified services coordinators for whom appropriate documentation has not been provided. The Respondent overbilled by exceeding the amount of an authorized payment thereby making a payment not approved by the Department. In addition to the foregoing, the Respondent attempted to serve seventy (70) clients. Such number exceeds the number of clients a services coordinator is authorized to have. Based upon the foregoing, the Department decided on March 1, 1995 not to renew Respondent's certification. Respondent timely challenged that decision. The application and assurances executed by Respondent provided a notice that the failure to comply with the Medicaid waiver policies constitutes grounds for denying or cancelling certification in the program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order affirming the agency action letter of March 1, 1995, which determined not to renew the Respondent's certification. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of January, 1997. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 1997. APPENDIX Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 12, 14 through 23, 25 through 31, and 33 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 13, the assurances contained, in substance, the same provisions but were not identical to the first ones executed by Respondent. With regard to paragraph 24, it is accepted that Respondent received a warning regarding soliciting clients otherwise rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the record. With regard to paragraph 32, it is accepted that Respondent was offered assistance for remediation purposes and was not singled-out for disparate treatment; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or argument or comment. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: 1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are rejected as argument, comment, or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Myron M. Gold, Esquire FOX AND GOLD, P.A. 2900 South West 28th Terrace Miami, Florida 33133 Hilda A. Fluriach, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, N-1014 Miami, Florida 33128 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard A. Doran, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee,Florida 32399-0700
