The Issue The issue is whether the Agency’s Lowest Charge Rule as identified in the petition filed in this matter is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented as prohibited by section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes (2013).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, AHCA, is the Florida agency responsible for the administration of the Medicaid program in Florida and is the agency responsible for the adoption, implementation and enforcement of the Lowest Charge Rule at issue in this proceeding. Petitioner, LabCorp, provides medical testing and clinical diagnostic services used by hospitals, physicians, and other medical providers to diagnose and treat patients in Florida and nationwide. LabCorp is a Florida Medicaid provider. Quest operates commercial reference laboratories in Florida and nationwide, providing a range of clinical laboratory services to assist health care providers in diagnosing and treating disease and other health conditions. Quest is a Florida Medicaid provider. As Florida Medicaid providers, LabCorp and Quest are subject to the rules adopted by AHCA to administer the Medicaid program in Florida, including the Lowest Charge Rule. The Lowest Charge Rule substantially affects the amounts LabCorp and Quest are entitled to charge and are paid for Medicaid services under chapter 409, Florida Statutes, and the applicable Florida regulations and handbooks. LabCorp and Quest are substantially affected by the Lowest Charge Rule and therefore have standing to seek an administrative determination of its invalidity. This action challenges the validity of the Lowest Charge Rule, which is included in both the first sentence of rule 59G- 5.110(2), and in the Provider General Handbook at page 1-4. 10. Rule 59G-5.110(2), states: Charges for services or goods billed to the Medicaid program shall not exceed the provider’s lowest charge to any other third party payment source for the same or equivalent medical and allied care, goods, or services provided to person [sic] who are not Medicaid recipients. Any services or goods customarily provided free of charge to patients may not be billed to Medicaid when provided to Medicaid recipients. Any payment made by Medicaid for services or goods not furnished in accordance with these provisions is subject to recoupment and the agency may, in such instances, initiate other appropriate administrative or legal action. The Provider General Handbook, adopted pursuant to rule 59G-5.020, repeats the Lowest Charge Rule at page 1-4: What the Provider May Charge for Services The provider’s charges for services billed to Medicaid must not exceed the provider’s lowest charge to any other third party source for the same or equivalent medical and allied care, goods, or services provided to individuals who are not Medicaid recipients.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent applied the proper reimbursement principles to Petitioners' initial Medicaid rate setting, and whether elements of detrimental reliance exist so as to require Respondent to establish a particular initial rate for Petitioners' facilities.
Findings Of Fact There are nine Petitioners in this case. Each of them is a long-term health care facility (nursing home) operated under independent and separate legal entities, but, generally, under the umbrella of a single owner, Tzvi "Steve" Bogomilsky. The issues in this case are essentially the same for all nine Petitioners, but the specific monetary impact on each Petitioner may differ. For purposes of addressing the issues at final hearing, only one of the Petitioners, Madison Pointe Rehabilitation and Health Center (Madison Pointe), was discussed, but the pertinent facts are relevant to each of the other Petitioners as well. Each of the Petitioners has standing in this case. The Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by each Petitioner was timely and satisfied minimum requirements. In September 2008, Bogomilsky caused to be filed with AHCA a Change of Licensed Operator ("CHOP") application for Madison Pointe.1 The purpose of that application was to allow a new entity owned by Bogomilsky to become the authorized licensee of that facility. Part and parcel of the CHOP application was a Form 1332, PFA. The PFA sets forth projected revenues, expenses, costs and charges anticipated for the facility in its first year of operation by the new operator. The PFA also contained projected (or budgeted) balance sheets and a projected Medicaid cost report for the facility. AHCA is the state agency responsible for licensing nursing homes in this state. AHCA also is responsible for managing the federal Medicaid program within this state. Further, AHCA monitors nursing homes within the state for compliance with state and federal regulations, both operating and financial in nature. The AHCA Division of Health Quality Assurance, Bureau of Long-Term Care Services, Long-Term Care Unit ("Long-Term Care Unit") is responsible for reviewing and approving CHOP applications and issuance of an operating license to the new licensee. The AHCA Division of Health Quality Assurance, Bureau of Health Facility Regulation, Financial Analysis Unit ("Financial Analysis Unit") is responsible for reviewing the PFA contained in the CHOP application and determining an applicant's financial ability to operate a facility in accordance with the applicable statutes and rules. Neither the Long-Term Care Unit nor the Financial Analysis Unit is a part of the Florida Medicaid Program. Madison Pointe also chose to submit a Medicaid provider application to the Medicaid program fiscal agent to enroll as a Medicaid provider and to be eligible for Medicaid reimbursement. (Participation by nursing homes in the Medicaid program is voluntary.) The Medicaid provider application was reviewed by the Medicaid Program Analysis Office (MPA) which, pursuant to its normal practices, reviewed the application and set an interim per diem rate for reimbursement. Interim rate-setting is dependent upon legislative direction provided in the General Appropriations Act and also in the Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (the Plan). The Plan is created by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS (formerly known as the Health Care Financing Administration) is a federal agency within the Department of Health and Human Services. CMS is responsible for administering the Medicare and Medicaid programs, utilizing state agencies for assistance when appropriate. In its PFA filed with the Financial Analysis Unit, Madison Pointe proposed an interim Medicaid rate of $203.50 per patient day (ppd) as part of its budgeted revenues. The projected interim rate was based on Madison Pointe's expected occupancy rate, projected expenses, and allowable costs. The projected rate was higher than the previous owner's actual rate in large part based on Madison Pointe's anticipation of pending legislative action concerning Medicaid reimbursement issues. That is, Madison Pointe projected higher spending and allowable costs based on expected increases proposed in the upcoming legislative session. Legislative Changes to the Medicaid Reimbursement System During the 2007 Florida Legislative Session, the Legislature addressed the status of Medicaid reimbursement for long-term care facilities. During that session, the Legislature enacted the 2007 Appropriations Act, Chapter 2007-72, Laws of Florida. The industry proposed, and the Legislature seemed to accept, that it was necessary to rebase nursing homes in the Medicaid program. Rebasing is a method employed by the Agency periodically to calibrate the target rate system and adjust Medicaid rates (pursuant to the amount of funds allowed by the Legislature) to reflect more realistic allowable expenditures by providers. Rebasing had previously occurred in 1992 and 2002. The rebasing would result in a "step-up" in the Medicaid rate for providers. In response to a stated need for rebasing, the 2007 Legislature earmarked funds to address Medicaid reimbursement. The Legislature passed Senate Bill 2800, which included provisions for modifying the Plan as follows: To establish a target rate class ceiling floor equal to 90 percent of the cost- based class ceiling. To establish an individual provider- specific target floor equal to 75 percent of the cost-based class ceiling. To modify the inflation multiplier to equal 2.0 times inflation for the individual provider-specific target. (The inflation multiplier for the target rate class ceiling shall remain at 1.4 times inflation.) To modify the calculation of the change of ownership target to equal the previous provider's operating and indirect patient care cost per diem (excluding incentives), plus 50 percent of the difference between the previous providers' per diem (excluding incentives) and the effect class ceiling and use an inflation multiplier of 2.0 times inflation. The Plan was modified in accordance with this legislation with an effective date of July 1, 2007. Four relevant sentences from the modified Plan are relevant to this proceeding, to wit: For a new provider with no cost history resulting from a change of ownership or operator, where the previous provider participated in the Medicaid program, the interim operating and patient care per diems shall be the lesser of: the class reimbursement ceiling based on Section V of this Plan, the budgeted per diems approved by AHCA based on Section III of this Plan, or the previous providers' operating and patient care cost per diem (excluding incentives), plus 50% of the difference between the previous providers' per diem (excluding incentives) and the class ceiling. The above new provider ceilings, based on the district average per diem or the previous providers' per diem, shall apply to all new providers with a Medicaid certification effective on or after July 1, 1991. The new provider reimbursement limitation above, based on the district average per diem or the previous providers' per diem, which affects providers already in the Medicaid program, shall not apply to these same providers beginning with the rate semester in which the target reimbursement provision in Section V.B.16. of this plan does not apply. This new provider reimbursement limitation shall apply to new providers entering the Medicaid program, even if the new provider enters the program during a rate semester in which Section V.B.16 of this plan does not apply. [The above cited sentences will be referred to herein as Plan Sentence 1, Plan Sentence 2, etc.] Madison Pointe's Projected Medicaid Rate Relying on the proposed legislation, including the proposed rebasing and step-up in rate, Madison Pointe projected an interim Medicaid rate of $203.50 ppd for its initial year of operation. Madison Pointe's new projected rate assumed a rebasing by the Legislature to eliminate existing targets, thereby, allowing more reimbursable costs. Although no legislation had been passed at that time, Madison Pointe's consultants made calculations and projections as to how the rebasing would likely affect Petitioners. Those projections were the basis for the $203.50 ppd interim rate. The projected rate with limitations applied (i.e., if Madison Pointe did not anticipate rebasing or believe the Plan revisions applied) would have been $194.26. The PFA portion of Madison Pointe's CHOP application was submitted to AHCA containing the $203.50 ppd interim rate. The Financial Analysis Unit, as stated, is responsible for, inter alia, reviewing PFAs submitted as part of a CHOP application. In the present case, Ryan Fitch was the person within the Financial Analysis Unit assigned responsibility for reviewing Madison Pointe's PFA. Fitch testified that the purpose of his review was to determine whether the applicant had projected sufficient monetary resources to successfully operate the facility. This would include a contingency fund (equal to one month's anticipated expenses) available to the applicant and reasonable projections of cost and expenses versus anticipated revenues.2 Upon his initial review of the Madison Pointe PFA, Fitch determined that the projected Medicaid interim rate was considerably higher than the previous operator's actual rate. This raised a red flag and prompted Fitch to question the propriety of the proposed rate. In his omissions letter to the applicant, Fitch wrote (as the fourth bullet point of the letter), "The projected Medicaid rate appears to be high relative to the current per diem rate and the rate realized in 2006 cost reports (which includes ancillaries and is net of contractual adjustments). Please explain or revise the projections." In response to the omissions letter, Laura Wilson, a health care accountant working for Madison Pointe, sent Fitch an email on June 27, 2008. The subject line of the email says, "FW: Omissions Letter for 11 CHOW applications."3 Then the email addressed several items from the omissions letter, including a response to the fourth bullet point which says: Item #4 - Effective July 1, 2007, it is anticipated that AHCA will be rebasing Medicaid rates (the money made available through elimination of some of Medicaid's participation in covering Medicare Part A bad debts). Based on discussions with AHCA and the two Associations (FHCA & FAHSA), there is absolute confidence that this rebasing will occur. The rebasing is expected to increase the Medicaid rates at all of the facilities based on the current operator's spending levels. As there is no definitive methodology yet developed, the rebased rates in the projections have been calculated based on the historical methodologies that were used in the 2 most recent rebasings (1992 and 2002). The rates also include the reestablishment of the 50% step-up that is also anticipated to begin again. The rebasing will serve to increase reimbursement and cover costs which were previously limited by ceilings. As noted in Note 6 of the financials, if something occurs which prevents the rebasing, Management will be reducing expenditures to align them with the available reimbursement. It is clear Madison Pointe's projected Medicaid rate was based upon proposed legislative actions which would result in changes to the Plan. It is also clear that should those changes not occur, Madison Pointe was going to be able to address the shortfall by way of reduced expenditures. Each of those facts was relevant to the financial viability of Madison Pointe's proposed operations. Madison Pointe's financial condition was approved by Fitch based upon his review of the PFA and the responses to his questions. Madison Pointe became the new licensed operator of the facility. That is, the Long-Term Care Unit deemed the application to have met all requirements, including financial ability to operate, and issued a license to the applicant. Subsequently, MPA provided to Madison Pointe its interim Medicaid rate. MPA advised Madison Pointe that its rate would be $194.55 ppd, some $8.95 ppd less than Madison Pointe had projected in its PFA (but slightly more than Madison Pointe would have projected with the 50 percent limitation from Plan Sentence 1 in effect, i.e., $194.26). The PFA projected 25,135 annual Medicaid patient days, which multiplied by $8.95, would equate to a reduction in revenues of approximately $225,000 for the first year of operation.4 MPA assigned Madison Pointe's interim Medicaid rate by applying the provisions of the Plan as it existed as of the date Madison Pointe's new operating license was issued, i.e., September 1, 2007. Specifically, MPA limited Madison Pointe's per diem to 50 percent of the difference between the previous provider's per diem and the applicable ceilings, as dictated by the changes to the Plan. (See Plan Sentence 1 set forth above.) Madison Pointe's projected Medicaid rate in the PFA had not taken any such limitations into account because of Madison Pointe's interpretation of the Plan provisions. Specifically, that Plan Sentence 3 applies to Madison Pointe and, therefore, exempts Madison Pointe from the new provider limitation set forth in Plan Sentences 1 and 2. However, Madison Pointe was not "already in the Medicaid program" as of July 1, 2007, as called for in Plan Sentence 3. Rather, Madison Pointe's commencement date in the Medicaid program was September 1, 2007. Plan Sentence 1 is applicable to a "new provider with no cost history resulting from a change of ownership or operator, where the previous operator participated in the Medicaid program." Madison Pointe falls within that definition. Thus, Madison Pointe's interim operating and patient care per diems would be the lesser of: (1) The class reimbursement ceiling based on Section V of the Plan; (2) The budgeted per diems approved by AHCA based on Section III of the Plan; or (3) The previous provider's operating and patient care cost per diem (excluding incentives), plus 50 percent of the difference between the previous provider's per diem and the class ceiling. Based upon the language of Plan Sentence 1, MPA approved an interim operating and patient care per diem of $194.55 for Madison Pointe. Plan Sentence 2 is applicable to Madison Pointe, because it applies to all new providers with a Medicaid certification effective after July 1, 1991. Madison Pointe's certification was effective September 1, 2007. Plan Sentence 3 is the primary point of contention between the parties. AHCA correctly contends that Plan Sentence 3 is not applicable to Petitioner, because it addresses rebasing that occurred on July 1, 2007, i.e., prior to Madison Pointe coming into the Medicaid system. The language of Plan Sentence 3 is clear and unambiguous that it applies to "providers already in the Medicaid program." Plan Sentence 4 is applicable to Madison Pointe, which entered the system during a rate semester, in which no other provider had a new provider limitation because of the rebasing. Again, the language is unambiguous that "[t]his new provider reimbursement limitation shall apply to new providers entering the Medicaid program. . . ." Madison Pointe is a new provider entering the program. Detrimental Reliance and Estoppel Madison Pointe submitted its CHOP application to the Long-Term Care Unit of AHCA for approval. That office has the clear responsibility for reviewing and approving (or denying) CHOP applications for nursing homes. The Long-Term Care Unit requires, as part of the CHOP application, submission of the PFA which sets forth certain financial information used to determine whether the applicant has the financial resources to operate the nursing home for which it is applying. The Long-Term Care Unit has another office within AHCA, the Financial Analysis Unit, to review the PFA. The Financial Analysis Unit is found within the Bureau of Health Facility Regulation. That Bureau is responsible for certificates of need and other issues, but has no authority concerning the issuance, or not, of a nursing home license. Nor does the Financial Analysis Unit have any authority to set an interim Medicaid rate. Rather, the Financial Analysis Unit employs certain individuals who have the skills and training necessary to review financial documents and determine an applicant's financial ability to operate. A nursing home licensee must obtain Medicaid certification if it wishes to participate in the program. Madison Pointe applied for Medicaid certification, filing its application with a Medicaid intermediary which works for CMS. The issuance of a Medicaid certification is separate and distinct from the issuance of a license to operate. When Madison Pointe submitted its PFA for review, it was aware that an office other than the Long-Term Care Unit would be reviewing the PFA. Madison Pointe believed the two offices within AHCA would communicate with one another, however. But even if the offices communicated with one another, there is no evidence that the Financial Analysis Unit has authority to approve or disapprove a CHOP application. That unit's sole purpose is to review the PFA and make a finding regarding financial ability to operate. Likewise, MPA--which determines the interim Medicaid rate for a newly licensed operator--operates independently of the Long-Term Care Unit or the Financial Analysis Unit. While contained within the umbrella of AHCA, each office has separate and distinct duties and responsibilities. There is no competent evidence that an applicant for a nursing home license can rely upon its budgeted interim rate--as proposed by the applicant and approved as reasonable by MPA--as the ultimate interim rate set by the Medicaid Program Analysis Office. At no point in time did Fitch tell Madison Pointe that a rate of $203.50 ppd would be assigned. Rather, he said that the rate seemed high; Madison Pointe responded that it could "eliminate expenditures to align them with the available reimbursement." The interim rate proposed by the applicant is an estimate made upon its own determination of possible facts and anticipated operating experience. The interim rate assigned by MPA is calculated based on the applicant's projections as affected by provisions in the Plan. Furthermore, it is clear that Madison Pointe was on notice that its proposed interim rate seemed excessive. In response to that notice, Madison Pointe did not reduce the projected rate, but agreed that spending would be curtailed if a lower interim rate was assigned. There was, in short, no reliance by Madison Pointe on Fitch's approval of the PFA as a de facto approval of the proposed interim rate. MPA never made a representation to Madison Pointe as to the interim rate it would receive until after the license was approved. There was, therefore, no subsequent representation made to Madison Pointe that was contrary to a previous statement. The Financial Analysis Unit's approval of the PFA was done with a clear and unequivocal concern about the propriety of the rate as stated. The approval was finalized only after a representation by Madison Pointe that it would reduce expenditures if a lower rate was imposed. Thus, Madison Pointe did not change its position based on any representation made by AHCA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, approving the Medicaid interim per diem rates established by AHCA and dismissing each of the Amended Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 2009.
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Respondent’s application of a fair rental value system of property cost reimbursement to Petitioner under the Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Medicaid Reimbursement Plan is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, CONSULTING MANAGEMENT AND EDUCATION, INC., d/b/a GULF COAST NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER (CME), is the licensed operator of a 103-bed nursing home in Clearwater, Florida, which is presently known as GULF COAST NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER (GULF COAST). CME participates in the Florida Medicaid Program as an enrolled provider. Respondent, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (AHCA), is the agency of the State of Florida authorized to implement and administer the Florida Medicaid Program, and is the successor agency to the former Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, pursuant to Chapter 93-129, Laws of Florida. Stipulated Facts Prior to 1993, the GULF COAST nursing home facility was known as COUNTRY PLACE OF CLEARWATER (COUNTRY PLACE), and was owned and operated by the Clearwater Limited Partnership, a limited partnership which is not related to CME. In 1993 CME agreed to purchase, and did in fact purchase, COUNTRY PLACE from the Clearwater Limited Partnership. Simultaneous with the purchase of COUNTRY PLACE, CME entered into a Sale/Leaseback Agreement with LTC Properties, Inc., a Maryland real estate investment trust which engages in the financing of nursing homes. The Purchase and Sale Agreement between Clearwater Limited Partnership and CME was contingent upon the Sale/Leaseback Agreement and the proposed Lease between CME and LTC Properties, Inc. On September 1, 1993, CME simultaneously as a part of the same transaction purchased COUNTRY PLACE, conveyed the facility to LTC Properties, Inc., and leased the facility back from LTC Properties, Inc. As required, CME had notified AHCA of the proposed transaction. AHCA determined that the transaction included a change of ownership and, by lease, a change of provider. CME complied with AHCA's requirements and became the licensed operator and Medicaid provider for COUNTRY PLACE. Thereafter, CME changed the name of the facility to GULF COAST. After CME acquired the facility and became the licensed operator and Medicaid provider, AHCA continued to reimburse CME the same per diem reimbursement which had been paid to the previous provider (plus certain inflation factors) until CME filed its initial cost report, as required for new rate setting. In the normal course of business, CME in 1995 filed its initial Medicaid cost report after an initial period of actual operation by CME. Upon review of the cost report, AHCA contended that the cost report was inaccurate and engaged in certain "cost settlement" adjustments. During this review, AHCA took the position that CME's property reimbursement should be based on FRVS methodologies rather than "cost" due to the lease. In November of 1995, CME received from AHCA various documents which recalculated all components of Petitioner's Medicaid reimbursement rates for all periods subsequent to CME's acquisition of the facility. In effect, AHCA placed CME on FRVS property reimbursement. The practical effect of AHCA's action was to reduce CME's property reimbursement both retroactively and prospectively. The retroactive application would result in a liability of CME to AHCA, due to a claimed overpayment by AHCA. The prospective application would (and has) resulted in a reduction of revenues. CME is substantially affected by AHCA's proposed action and by Sections I.B., III.G.2.d.(1), V.E.1.h., and V.E.4. of the Florida Medicaid Plan. Additional Findings of Fact The Florida Medicaid Plan establishes methodologies for reimbursement of a nursing home's operating costs and patient care costs, as well as property costs. The dispute in this matter relates only to reimbursement of property costs. CME as the operator of the GULF COAST nursing home facility is entitled to reimbursement of property costs in accordance with the Florida Medicaid Plan. CME as the operator of the GULF COAST facility entered into a Florida Medicaid Program Provider Agreement, agreeing to abide by the provisions of the Florida Medicaid Plan. The Sale/Leaseback Agreement entered into by CME and LTC Properties Inc. (LTC) specifically provides for a distinct sale of the nursing home facility to LTC. LTC holds record fee title to GULF COAST. LTC, a Maryland corporation, is not related to CME, a Colorado corporation. The Florida Medicaid Plan is intended to provide reimbursement for reasonable costs incurred by economically and efficiently operated facilities. The Florida Medicaid Plan pays a single per diem rate for all levels of nursing care. After a nursing home facility's first year of operation, a cost settling process is conducted with AHCA which results in a final cost report. The final cost report serves as a baseline for reimbursement over the following years. Subsequent to the first year of operation, a facility files its cost report annually. AHCA normally adjusts a facility's reimbursement rate twice a year based upon the factors provided for in the Florida Medicaid Plan. The rate-setting process takes a provider through Section II of the Plan relating to cost finding and audits resulting in cost adjustments. CME submitted the appropriate cost reports after its first year of operation of the GULF COAST facility. Section III of the Florida Medicaid Plan specifies the areas of allowable costs. Under the Allowable Costs Section III.G.2.d.(1) in the Florida Title XIX Plan, a facility with a lease executed on or after October 1, 1985, shall be reimbursed for lease costs and other property costs under the Fair Rental Value System (FRVS). AHCA has treated all leases the same under FRVS since that time. AHCA does not distinguish between types of leases under the FRVS method. The method for the FRVS calculation is provided in Section V.E.1.a-g of the Florida Medicaid Plan. A “hold harmless” exception to application of the FRVS method is provided for at Section V.E.1.h of the Florida Medicaid Plan, and Section V.E.4 of the Plan provides that new owners shall receive the prior owner’s cost-based method when the prior owner was not on FRVS under the hold harmless provision. As a lessee and not the holder of record fee title to the facility, neither of those provisions apply to CME. At the time CME acquired the facility, there was an indication that the Sale/Leaseback transaction with LTC was between related parties, so that until the 1995 cost settlement, CME was receiving the prior owner’s cost-based property method of reimbursement. When AHCA determined that the Sale/Leaseback transaction between CME and LTC was not between related parties, AHCA set CME’s property reimbursement component under FRVS as a lessee. Property reimbursement based on the FRVS methodology does not depend on actual period property costs. Under the FRVS methodology, all leases after October 1985 are treated the same. For purposes of reimbursement, AHCA does not recognize any distinction between various types of leases. For accounting reporting purposes, the Sale/Leaseback transaction between CME and LTD is treated as a capital lease, or “virtual purchase” of the facility. This accounting treatment, however, is limited to a reporting function, with the underlying theory being merely that of providing a financing mechanism. Record fee ownership remains with LTC. CME, as the lease holder, may not encumber title. The Florida Medicaid Plan does not distinguish between a sale/leaseback transaction and other types of lease arrangements. Sections IV.D., V.E.1.h., and V.E.4., the “hold harmless” and “change of ownership” provisions which allow a new owner to receive the prior owner’s method of reimbursement if FRVS would produce a loss for the new owner, are limited within the Plan’s organizational context, and within the context of the Plan, to owner/operators of facilities, and grandfathered lessee/operators. These provisions do not apply to leases executed after October 1, 1985. Capital leases are an accounting construct for reporting purposes, which is inapplicable when the Florida Medicaid Plan specifically addresses this issue. The Florida Medicaid Plan specifically addresses the treatment of leases entered into after October 1985 and provides that reimbursement will be made pursuant to the FRVS method.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Norman G. Becker, Jr., is a licensed dentist having been issued license number DN 0002281 by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Dentistry. He has practiced dentistry in the State since 1958. On or about September 8, 1980, Respondent furnished one William R. Northlick, 101 North Grandview, Mount Dora, Florida, a written prescription for four-ounces of dimethvl sulfoxide (DMSO). Northlick had been a patient of Respondent for approximately ten years, had complained of severe elbow pain, and inquired as to the status of DMSO and where it could be obtained. Respondent told him it was available at a local drug store and advised he could try a small amount. At an undisclosed date in 1980, Respondent was approached by a professional golfer named Gary Weintz who commlained of golfers elbow and who asked about the availability of DMSO. Respondent is active in arranging golf functions on the Professional Golf Association-(PGA) tour and presumably met Weintz, uho is a member of the PGA, in that capacity. Respondent telephoned William Kennedy, a pharmacist at Thayer's Colonial Pharmacy in Orlando, Florida, and asked whether DMSO could be legally prescribed. Kennedy replied that he believed it permissible for Becker to assist Weintz in obtaining the drug and thereafter took a prescription for the same over the telephone. Before filling the prescription, Kennedy required Weintz to sign a patient release form acknowledging that DMSO was a veterinary product and releasing anyone from liability due to its use. Other than the two occasions referred to above, Becker has not prescribed DMSO at any time. He did not charge Northlick or Weintz for his assistance nor did he provide any follow-up care or treatment to either individual. Respondent has never personally used DMSO or applied it to any other patient or friend. Respondent has been a practicing dentist in Florida since 1958, and has lived in Winter Park, Florida, for the last eighteen years. His specialty is periodontics and he was the founder and first president of the Florida Society of Periodontics. He enjoys an excellent personal and professional reputation in the community. This was attested to by Dr. Neil G. Powell, immediate past president of the Florida Dental Association. Other than the present incident, Respondent's record has been exemplary, and he has never been subject to prior disciplinary action. Although Becker wrote the prescription for Northlick on a prescription pad, he did not consider it to be a prescription item". Rather, he considered it the same as when giving customers written instructions for obtaining water piks, electric toothbrushes and other non-prescription items. For this reason, he wrote the words "use as directed" on the prescription pad in lieu of the detailed instructions typically given when writing a normal prescription.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 466.028(1)(z), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint and that the remaining charge in paragraph 11a be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be issued a private reprimand. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James F. Page, Jr., Esquire P.O. Box 3068 Orlando, Florida 32802 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Medicaid overpayments were made to Respondent and, if so, what is the total amount of those overpayments. Whether, as a "sanction," Respondent should be directed to submit to a "comprehensive follow-up review in six months."
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings s of fact are made to supplement and clarify the factual stipulations set forth in the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation and their January 26, 2007, pleading:4 Respondent and his Practice Respondent is a pediatric physician whose office is located in a poor neighborhood in Hialeah, Florida. He has a very busy practice, seeing approximately 50 to 60 patients each day the office is open. Respondent documents patient visits by making handwritten notations on printed "progress note" forms. Because of the fast-paced nature of his practice, he does not always "have time to write everything as [he] would like, because [there] is too much" for him to do. Respondent's Participation in the Medicaid Program During the Audit Period, Respondent was authorized to provide physician services to eligible Medicaid patients. Respondent provided such services pursuant to a valid Provider Agreement (Provider Agreement) with AHCA, which contained the following provisions, among others: The Provider agrees to participate in the Florida Medicaid program under the following terms and conditions: * * * Quality of Services. The provider agrees to provide medically necessary services or goods of not less than the scope and quality it provides to the general public. The provider agrees that services or goods billed to the Medicaid program must be medically necessary, of a quality comparable to those furnished by the provider's peers, and within the parameters permitted by the provider's license or certification. The provider further agrees to bill only for the services performed within the specialty or specialties designated in the provider application on file with the Agency. The services or goods must have been actually provided to eligible Medicaid recipients by the provider prior to submitting the claim. Compliance. The provider agrees to comply with all local, state and federal laws, rules, regulations, licensure laws, Medicaid bulletins, manuals, handbooks and Statements of Policy as they may be amended from time to time. Term and signatures. The parties agree that this is a voluntary agreement between the Agency and the provider, in which the provider agrees to furnish services or goods to Medicaid recipients. . . . Provider Responsibilities. The Medicaid provider shall: * * * (b) Keep and maintain in a systematic and orderly manner all medical and Medicaid related records as the Agency may require and as it determines necessary; make available for state and federal audits for five years, complete and accurate medical, business, and fiscal records that fully justify and disclose the extent of the goods and services rendered and billings made under the Medicaid. The provider agrees that only records made at the time the goods and services were provided will be admissible in evidence in any proceeding relating to the Medicaid program. * * * (d) Except as otherwise provided by law, the provider agrees to provide immediate access to authorized persons (including but not limited to state and federal employees, auditors and investigators) to all Medicaid- related information, which may be in the form of records, logs, documents, or computer files, and all other information pertaining to services or goods billed to the Medicaid program. This shall include access to all patient records and other provider information if the provider cannot easily separate records for Medicaid patients from other records. * * * (f) Within 90 days of receipt, refund any moneys received in error or in excess of the amount to which the provider is entitled from the Medicaid program. * * * (i) . . . . The provider shall be liable for all overpayments for any reason and pay to the Agency any fine or overpayment imposed by the Agency or a court of competent jurisdiction. Provider agrees to pay interest at 12% per annum on any fine or repayment amount that remains unpaid 30 days from the date of any final order requiring payment to the Agency. * * * Respondent's Medicaid provider number (under which he billed the Medicaid program for providing these services) was (and remains) 370947700. Handbook Provisions The handbooks with which Petitioner was required to comply in order to receive Medicaid payment for services rendered during the Audit Period included the Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook, HCFA-1500 (MPR Handbook); Physician Coverage and Limitations Handbook (PCL Handbook); the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Coverage and Limitations Handbook (EPSDTCL Handbook); and the Child Health Check-up Coverage and Limitations Handbook (CHCUCL Handbook). Medical Necessity The PCL Handbook provided that the Medicaid program would reimburse physician providers for services "determined [to be] medically necessary" and not duplicative of another provider's service, and it went on to state as follows: In addition, the services must meet the following criteria: the services must be individualized, specific, consistent with symptoms or confirmed diagnosis of the illness or injury under treatment, and not in excess of the recipient's needs; the services cannot be experimental or investigational; the services must reflect the level of services that can be safely furnished and for which no equally effective and more conservative or less costly treatment is available statewide; and the services must be furnished in a manner not primarily intended for the convenience of the recipient, the recipient's caretaker, or the provider. The fact that a provider has prescribed, recommended, or approved medical or allied care, goods, or services does not, in itself, make such care, goods or services medically necessary or a covered services. Note See Appendix D, Glossary, in the Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook, HCFA-1500 and EPSDT 224, for the definition of medically necessary.[5] The EPSDTCL and CHCUCL Handbooks had similar provisions. Documentation Requirements The MPR Handbook required the provider to keep "accessible, legible and comprehensible" medical records that "state[d] the necessity for and the extent of services" billed the Medicaid program and that were "signed and dated at the time of service." The handbook further required, among other things, that the provider retain such records for "at least five years from the date of service" and "send, at his or her expense, legible copies of all Medicaid-related information to the authorized state and federal agencies and their authorized representatives." The MPR Handbook warned that providers "not in compliance with the Medicaid documentation and record retention policies [described therein] may be subject to administrative sanctions and recoupment of Medicaid payments" and that "Medicaid payments for services that lack required documentation or appropriate signatures will be recouped." EPSDT Screening/Child Health Check-Up The EPSDTCL Handbook provided: To be reimbursed by Medicaid, the provider must address and document in the recipient's medical record all the required components of an EPSDT screening. The following required components are listed in the order that they appear on the optional EPSDT screening form: Health and developmental history Nutritional assessment Developmental assessment Physical examination Dental screening Vision screening Hearing screening Laboratory tests Immunization Health education Diagnosis and treatment The CHCUCL Handbook, which replaced the EPSDTCL Handbook in or around May 2000, similarly provided as follows: To be reimbursed by Medicaid, the provider must assess and document in the child's medical record all the required components of a Child Health Check-Up. The required components are as follows: Comprehensive Health and Developmental History, including assessment of past medical history, developmental history and behavioral health status; Nutritional assessment; Developmental assessment; Comprehensive Unclothed Physical Examination Dental screening including dental referral, where required; Vision screening including objective testing, where required; Hearing screening including objective testing, where required; Laboratory tests including blood lead testing, where required; Appropriate immunizations; Health education, anticipatory guidance; Diagnosis and treatment; and Referral and follow-up, as appropriate. Coding Chapter 3 of the PCL Handbook "describe[d] the procedure codes for the services reimbursable by Medicaid that [had to be] used by physicians providing services to eligible recipients." As explained on the first page of this chapter of the handbook: The procedure codes listed in this chapter [were] Health Care Financing Administration Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Levels 1, 2 and 3. These [were] based on the Physician[]s['] Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) book. The Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) book referred to in Chapter 3 of the PCL Handbook was a publication of the American Medical Association. It contained a listing of procedures and services performed by physicians in different settings, each identified by a "procedure code" consisting of five digits or a letter followed by four digits. For instance, there were various "procedure codes" for office visits. These "procedure codes" included the following, among others: New Patient * * * 99204 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient which requires these three key components: a comprehensive history; a comprehensive examination; and medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate to high severity. Physicians typically spend 45 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * Established Patient * * * 99213 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: an expanded problem focused history; an expanded problem focused examination; medical decision making of low complexity. Counseling and coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of low to moderate severity. Physicians typically spend 15 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. 99214 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: a detailed history; a detailed examination; medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate to high severity. Physicians typically spend 25 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. * * * Fee Schedules In Appendix J of the PCL Handbook, there was a "fee schedule," which established the amount physicians would be paid by the Medicaid program for each reimbursable procedure and service (identified by "procedure code"). For both "new patient" office visits (99201-99205 "procedure code" series) and "established patient" office visits (99211-99215 "procedure code" series), the higher numbered the "procedure code" in the series, the more a physician would be reimbursed under the "fee schedule." The Audit and Aftermath Commencing in or around August 2002, AHCA conducted an audit of Respondent's Medicaid claims for services rendered during the Audit Period (Audit Period Claims).6 Respondent had submitted 18,102 such Audit Period Claims, for which he had received payments totaling $596,623.15. These Audit Period Claims involved 1,372 different Medicaid patients. From this group, AHCA randomly selected a "cluster sample" of 40 patients. Of the 18,102 Audit Period Claims, 713 had been for services that, according to the claims, had been provided to the 40 patients in the "cluster sample" (Sample Claims). Respondent had received a total of $23,263.18 for these 713 Sample Claims. During an August 28, 2002, visit to Respondent's office, AHCA personnel "explain[ed] to [Respondent] what the audit was about [and] why [AHCA] was doing it" and requested Respondent to provide AHCA with copies of the medical records Respondent had on file for the 40 patients in the "cluster sample" documenting the services provided to them during the Audit Period. The originals of these records were not inspected by AHCA personnel or agents during, or any time after, this August 28, 2002, site visit. Sometime within approximately 30 to 45 days of the August 28, 2002, site visit, Respondent, through his office staff, made the requested copies (First Set of Copies) and provided them to AHCA. There is nothing on the face of these documents to suggest that they were not true, accurate, and complete copies of the originals in Respondent's possession, as they existed at the time of copying (Copied Originals). They do not appear, upon visual examination, to be the product of "bad photocopying." While the handwritten entries and writing are oftentimes difficult (at least for the undersigned) to decipher, this is because of the poor legibility of the handwriting, not because the copies are faint or otherwise of poor quality. Each of the Sample Claims was reviewed to determine whether it was supported by information contained in the First Set of Copies. An initial review was conducted by AHCA Program Analyst Theresa Mock and AHCA Registered Nurse Consultant Blanca Notman. AHCA then contracted with Larry Deeb, M.D., to conduct an independent "peer review" in accordance with the provisions of Section 409.9131, Florida Statutes. Since 1980, Dr. Deeb has been a Florida-licensed pediatric physician, certified by the American Board of Pediatrics, in active practice in Tallahassee. AHCA provided Dr. Deeb with the First Set of Copies, along with worksheets containing a "[l]isting of [a]ll claims in [the] sample" on which Ms. Notman had made handwritten notations indicating her preliminary determination as to each of the Sample Claims (Claims Worksheets). In conducting his "peer review," Dr. Deeb did not interview any of the 40 patients in the "cluster sample," nor did he take any other steps to supplement the information contained in the documents that he was provided. Dr. Deeb examined the First Set of Copies. He conveyed to AHCA his findings regarding the sufficiency of these documents to support the Sample Claims by making appropriate handwritten notations on the Claims Worksheets before returning them to AHCA. Based on Dr. Deeb's sufficiency findings, as well as Ms. Notman's "no documentation" determinations, AHCA "provisional[ly]" determined that Respondent had been overpaid a total $80,788.23 for the Audit Period Claims. By letter dated July 7, 2003 (Provisional Agency Audit Report), AHCA advised Petitioner of this "provisional" determination and invited Respondent to "submit further documentation in support of the claims identified as overpayment," adding that "[d]ocumentation that appear[ed] to be altered, or in any other way appear[ed] not to be authentic, [would] not serve to reduce the overpayment." Appended to the letter were "[t]he audit work papers [containing a] listing [of] the claims that [were] affected by this determination." In the Provisional Agency Audit Report, AHCA gave the following explanation as to how it arrived at its overpayment determination: REVIEW DETERMINATION(S) Medicaid policy defines the varying levels of care and expertise required for the evaluation and management procedure codes for office visits. The documentation you provided supports a lower level of office visit than the one for which you billed and received payment. The difference between the amount you were paid and the correct payment for the appropriate level of service is considered an overpayment. Medicaid policy specifies how medical records must be maintained. A review of your medical records revealed that some services for which you billed and received payment were not documented. Medicaid requires documentation of the services and considers payment made for services not appropriately documented an overpayment. Medicaid policy addresses specific billing requirements and procedures. You billed Medicaid for Child Health Check Up (CHCUP) services and office visits for the same child on the same day. Child Health Check- Up Providers may only bill for one visit, a Child Health Check-Up or a sick visit. The difference between the amount you were paid and the appropriate fee is considered an overpayment. The overpayment was calculated as follows: A random sample of 40 recipients respecting whom you submitted 713 claims was reviewed. For those claims in the sample which have dates of service from January 01, 2000 through December 31, 2001 an overpayment of $4,168.00 or $5.84667601 per claim was found, as indicated on the accompanying schedule. Since you were paid for a total (population) of 18,102 claims for that period, the point estimate of the total overpayment is 18,102 x $5.84667601= $105,836.33. There is a 50 percent probability that the overpayment to you is that amount or more. There was then an explanation of the "statistical formula for cluster sampling" that AHCA used and how it "calculated that the overpayment to [Respondent was] $80,788.23 with a ninety-five percent (95%) probability that it [was] that amount or more." After receiving the Provisional Agency Audit Report, Respondent requested to meet with Dr. Deeb to discuss Dr. Deeb's sufficiency findings. The meeting was held on September 25, 2003, approximately six months after Dr. Deeb had reviewed the First Set of Copies and a year after AHCA had received the First Set of Copies from Respondent. At the meeting, Respondent presented to Dr. Deeb what Respondent represented was a better set of copies of the Copied Originals than the First Set of Copies (on which Dr. Deeb had based the sufficiency findings AHCA relied on in making its "provisional" overpayment determination). According to Respondent, the First Set of Copies "had not been properly Xeroxed." He stated that his office staff "had not copied the back section of the documentation and that was one of the major factors in the documentation not supporting the [claimed] level of service." The copies that Respondent produced at this meeting (Second Set of Copies) had additional handwritten entries and writing (both on the backs and fronts of pages) not found in the First Set of Copies: the backs of "progress note" pages that were completely blank in the First Set of Copies contained handwritten narratives, and there were handwritten entries and writing in numerous places on the fronts of these pages where, on the fronts of the corresponding pages in the First Set of Copies, just blank, printed lines appeared (with no other discernible markings). The Second Set of Copies was not appreciably clearer than the First Set of Copies. In the two hours that he had set aside to meet with Respondent, Dr. Deeb only had time to conduct a "quick[]," partial review of the Second Set of Copies. Based on this review (which involved looking at documents concerning approximately half of the 40 patients in the "cluster sample"), Dr. Deeb preliminarily determined to "allow" many of the Sample Claims relating to these patients that he had previously determined (based on his review of the First Set of Copies) were not supported by sufficient documentation. Following this September 25, 2003, meeting, after comparing the Second Set of Copies with the First Set of Copies and noting the differences between the two, AHCA "made the decision that [it] would not accept the [S]econd [S]et [of Copies]" because these documents contained entries and writing that appeared to have been made, not contemporaneously with the provision of the goods or services they purported to document (as required), but rather after the post-Audit Period preparation of the First Set of Copies. Instead, AHCA, reasonably, based its finalized overpayment determination on the First Set of Copies. Thereafter, AHCA prepared and sent to Respondent a Final Agency Audit Report, which was in the form of a letter dated June 29, 2004, advising Respondent that AHCA had finalized the "provisional" determination announced in the Provisional Agency Audit that he had been overpaid $80,788.23 for the Audit Period Claims (a determination that the preponderance of the record evidence in this case establishes is a correct one).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that AHCA enter a final order finding that Respondent received $80,788.23 in Medicaid overpayments for the Audit Period Claims, and requiring Respondent to repay this amount to AHCA. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2007.
The Issue The issue in this case concerns whether the Petitioner, H. J. Dental, Inc. (“Petitioner” or "HJD"), is obligated to repay $313,415.44 to the Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration ("Respondent" or "AHCA") for Medicaid payments that were claimed by and were paid to the Petitioner for services which the AHCA asserts in its audit report were not eligible for payment under the terms of the Medicaid program.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Petitioner was an enrolled Medicaid provider, having been enrolled under Provider number 071468200. As an enrolled Medicaid provider, the Petitioner was authorized to provide certain dental services to Medicaid recipients and to bill the Medicaid program for those services. All Medicaid provider agreements, including the one entered into by HJD, contain a specific provision that the provider agrees to abide by the statutes, laws, rules, and policies of the Medicaid Program in connection with the provisions of services to recipients. The "audit period" that is the subject of the AHCA's recoupment effort is January 1, 1998, to December 31, 1998. During this audit period, the Medicaid Program paid the Petitioner $313,415.44 for the dental services that are at issue in this proceeding. The AHCA contends that the entire $313,415.44 is subject to recoupment. On or about March 5, 2000, the AHCA prepared and mailed to HJD a Preliminary Agency Audit Report ("PAAR"). The PAAR advised HJD that the AHCA had "made a preliminary determination that certain claims for which you [HJD] were paid $313,415.44, were for services not covered by Medicaid." The PAAR described the process by which the AHCA had arrived at its audit conclusions and specifically advised HJD of the following specific reasons for the audit conclusion that HJD had been overpaid in the amount of $313,415.44: The documentation submitted for x-ray procedure codes D0220, D0230, D0240, and D0272, whch are not considered to be of diagnostic quality by the Medicaid dental consultant. The Medicaid Dental Coverage and Limitations Handbook states in chapter 2-21, Radiographic Examination: "All radiographs must be of diagnostic quality." Claims for radiographic film that is not considered to be of diagnostic quality are considered overpayments in the sample. You billed and were paid for specific claims in the sample that are not documented as having been actually provided, or that lack sufficient documentation in the recipient's dental records to support the medical necessity for the claims. Claims that lack appropriate documentation are considered overpayments in the sample. The PAAR also described the AHCA's sample methodology (a random sample of 42 Medicaid recipients for whom 306 claims were submitted by HJD), as well as the statistical formula used by the AHCA for cluster sampling. On the last page of the PAAR, HJD was also advised: "Since the findings of our review are provisional, you may submit information that you believe would reduce the amount of improper payments identified." On or about August 18, 2000, the law firm that was then representing HJD mailed to the AHCA a letter responding to the PAAR. The letter of August 18, 2000, criticized the validity of the AHCA's audit methodology and offered to settle the matter for a small fraction of the $313,415.44 sought by the AHCA. The letter of August 18, 2000, did not include any additional information regarding any of the sampled claims that provided the factual basis for the audit conclusions. On or about October 27, 2000, the AHCA issued a Final Agency Audit Report ("FAAR") in this case. The overpayment amount in the FAAR remained the same as in the PAAR, beause HJD did not provide any additional evidence following its receipt of the PAAR. The audit in this case was performed in a manner consistent with the AHCA's established practices and procedures for audits of Medicare Program providers. The audit in this case was performed using accepted and valid auditing, accounting, analytical, statistical, and peer-review methods. During the subject audit period from January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1988, HJD received overpayments from the Medicare Program in the amount of $313,415.44. As of the date of the hearing in this case, HJD has not repaid any of the overpayment amount to the AHCA.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case concluding that HJD was overpaid by the Medicaid Program in the amount of $313,415.44, and requiring that HJD promptly pay to the AHCA the amount of $313,415.44, plus interest at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. 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 1st day of July, 2004.
The Issue Whether Petitioner received Medicaid overpayments and, if so, the total amount of the overpayments.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is charged with administration of the Medicaid program in Florida pursuant to Section 409.907, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is a durable medical equipment provider that provided Medicaid services to Medicaid beneficiaries pursuant to a valid Medicaid Provider Agreement with AHCA under provider number 9512721 00. Petitioner was an authorized Medicaid provider during the period of October 1, 1999, through September 30, 2001, which is the audit period at issue here. AHCA conducted an audit of paid Medicaid claims for services claimed to have been performed by Petitioner from October 1, 1000, through September 30, 2001. On October 16, 2002, AHCA issued a Final Agency Audit Report ("FAAR") requesting Petitioner to reimburse AHCA in the amount of $28,407.90, for Medicaid claims submitted by and paid to Petitioner, for services allegedly rendered during the audit period. When the FAAR was issued, AHCA's claims for overpayment were based upon audit findings that paid Medicaid claims for certain services performed by Petitioner did not meet Medicaid requirements. The deficiencies in the subject Medicaid claims included a lack of documentation of required medication for nebulizer equipment, payments in excess of allowable total amounts for rent-to-purchase equipment, and payments for portable oxygen with a lack of documentation that the attending practitioner has ordered a program of exercise or an activity program for therapeutic purposes, that the recommended activities cannot be accomplished by the use of stationary oxygen service, and that the use of a portable oxygen system during exercise or activity results in improvement in the individual's ability to perform the exercises or activities. During the subject audit period, the applicable statutes, rules, and Medicaid handbooks required Petitioner to retain all medical, fiscal, professional, and business records on all services provided to a Medicaid recipient. Petitioner had to retain these records for at least five years from the dates of service. Petitioner had a duty to make sure that each claim was true and accurate and was for goods and services that were provided in accordance with the requirements of Medicaid rules, handbooks, and policies, and in accordance with federal and state law. Medicaid providers who do not comply with the Medicaid documentation and record retention policies may be subject to administrative sanctions and/or recoupment of Medicaid payments. Medicaid payments for services that lack required documentation and/or appropriate signatures will be recouped. Claire Cohen, AHCA's analyst, generated a random list of 30 Medicaid recipients (cluster sample) who had received services by Petitioner during the audit period. In addition, AHCA generated work papers revealing the following: the total number of Medicaid recipients during the audit period; the total claims of Petitioner, with dates of services; the total amount of money paid to the Petitioner during the audit period; and worksheets representing the analyst's review of each recipient's claims for the audit period. After Ms. Cohen reviewed the medical records and documentation provided by Petitioner, she reviewed the Medicaid handbook requirements, and arrived at a figure of $7,572.13 as the total overpayment for all cluster sample claims. Using the Agency's formula for calculating the extrapolated overpayment, Ms. Cohen determined that the overpayment in this case amounted to $29,703.63. Ms. Cohen then prepared the June 20, 2002, Preliminary Agency Audit Report (PAAR) and mailed it to Petitioner. At that point, the case was reassigned to Ellen Williams, a program analyst/investigator. Ms. Williams reviewed additional documentation submitted by Petitioner, and on October 16, 2002, issued on behalf of AHCA, the FAAR, which reduced the alleged overpayment to $28,407.90. Part of this reduction resulted from Petitioner's paying $369.97 to satisfy the issue concerning payments in excess of allowable totals for rent-to-purchase equipment. At the hearing, Ms. Williams testified that the adjusted overpayment amount was $27,473.27. The formula used by AHCA is a valid statistical formula, the random sample used by the Agency was statistically significant, the cluster sample was random, and the algebraic formula and the statistical formula used by AHCA are valid formulas. The DME/Medical Supply Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook provides, in part: Medicaid reimburses for portable oxygen when a practitioner prescribes activities requiring portable oxygen. The oxygen provider must document the following information in the recipient's record: the recipient qualifies for oxygen service; the attending practitioner has ordered a program of exercise or an activity program for therapeutic purposes; the recommended exercises or activities cannot be accomplished by the use of stationary oxygen services; and the use of a portable oxygen system during the activity or exercise results in an improvement in the individual's ability to perform the activities and exercises. The DME/Medical Supply Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook also provides, in part: Medicaid may reimburse for a nebulizer if the recipient's ability to breathe is severely impaired. The documentation of medial necessity must include required medications. The following payments are claimed by AHCA to be overpayments for failure to provide documentation of medical necessity and required medications: Recipient Date of Service Procedure Overpayment 4 7/19/00 E0570 $106.70 9 6/30/00 E0570 $106.70 10 10/24/00 E0570 $106.70 14 02/15/00 E0570 $106.70 16 05/08/00 E0570 $106.70 23 06/09/00 E0570 $106.70 26 06/14/00 E0570 $106.70 The remaining overpayments claimed by AHCA concern the failure to document that the attending practitioner had ordered a program of exercise or an activity program for therapeutic purposes that required the use of a portable oxygen system. The Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook provides, in part, that "Records must be retained for a period of at least five years from the date of service." The types of records that must be retained include "patient treatment plans" and "prescription records." The handbook goes on to provide in pertinent part: Medical records must state the necessity for and the extent of services provided. The following minimum requirements may vary according to the services rendered: * * * Treatment plan, including prescriptions; Medications, supplies, scheduling frequency for follow-up or other services; Progress reports, treatment rendered; * * * Note: See the service-specific Coverage and Limitations Handbook for record keeping requirements that are specific to a particular service. Providers who are not in compliance with the Medicaid documentation and record retention policies described in this chapter may be subject to administrative sanctions and recoupment of Medicaid Payments. Medicaid payments for services that lack required documentation or appropriate signatures will be recouped. Note: See Chapter 5 in this handbook for information on administrative sanctions and Medicaid payment recoupment. Petitioner, through its owners and operators, is of the view that it does not need to have the documentation on file, and it does not ask physicians for details about their prescriptions, "because that's something private from doctors and patient." Petitioner, by signing a Medicaid Provider agreement, agreed that all submissions for payment of claims for services will constitute a certification that the services were provided in accordance with local, state, and federal laws, as well as rules and regulations applicable to the Medicaid program, including the Medical Provider Handbooks issued by AHCA. Petitioner routinely obtained from Medicaid beneficiaries to whom it provides goods or services a written statement authorizing other healthcare provides to furnish any information needed to determine benefits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency issue a final order requiring Petitioner to reimburse the Agency for Medicaid overpayments in the total amount of $27,473.27, plus such interest as may statutorily accrue. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. 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 22nd day of September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Tom Barnhart, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Lawrence R. Metsch, Esquire Metsch & Metsch, P.A. 1455 Northwest 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to coverage under the State of Florida Group Health Self Insurance Plan for dental treatment, as set forth in the Petition. This proceeding arose after denial of a supplemental claim by Petitioner for dental expenses under the State of Florida Group Health Self Insurance Plan. At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of one witness and testified in his own behalf. Petitioner submitted five exhibits in evidence. Respondent presented no witnesses and submitted two exhibits in evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law have been fully considered and those portions thereof not adopted herein are considered to be either unnecessary, irrelevant, or unsupported in law or fact, and are specifically rejected.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Judge Harry Lee Coe, III, of Tampa, Florida, was insured by the Florida Group Health Self Insurance Plan during 1981 and continues to be so insured. (Stipulation) During the month of June 1981, Petitioner had an accident in his home which caused a fracture to his left upper incisor and lower incisor, teeth numbers 9 and 25, respectively. He was treated by Dr. F. A. Priede, D.D.S., in June 1981, for the damage to his teeth. The treatment consisted of crowning the two chipped teeth. The accident also damaged the lateral incisor, tooth number 10, necessitating a root canal procedure by another dentist. Petitioner filed a claim with the Administrator of the State of Florida Employee Group Health Self Insurance Plan, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., and received payment in the amount of $321.88. (Testimony of Priede, Coe, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 3-4) In February 1982, Petitioner fractured tooth number 9 to the extent that it required extraction. Dr. Priede replaced the tooth with a temporary bridge. A permanent bridge was placed in June 1982 replacing tooth number 9 and swinging to tooth number 10 which had been crowned. Although the cause of the fractured tooth number 9 was not established, Dr. Priede testified that it is common for such a weak small tooth to fracture later as a result of the initial damage and treatment to the tooth. (Testimony of Priede, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 3) The cost of the supplementary dental treatment was in the amount of $400 and a claim was submitted to Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. for that amount. The claim was denied on the basis that the dental services did not result from accidental injury. Petitioner's counsel requested reconsideration of the denial and enclosed a letter from Dr. Priede to him, dated May 10, 1983, explaining the course of dental treatment. By letter, dated June 3, 1983, he was advised by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. that the claim was not timely under the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan because dental services must be provided within 120 days of the accident unless explanation from the dentist is submitted within that period stating the extenuating circumstances requiring the treatment to be performed over a longer period of time. Petitioner then requested an administrative hearing under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. (Testimony of Priede, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-5) The contractual provisions of the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan are set forth in summarized form in a booklet issued by the Department of Administration. Paragraph 23B of the booklet, effective May 1, 1978, provided as follows: 23. LIMITATIONS The following limitations shall apply under the plan. * * * B. Any dental work, dental treatment or dental examinations necessary for the repair or alleviation of damage to an Insured caused by an Accident shall be rendered within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the accident unless a written explanation from the dentist or Physician is submitted stating the extenuating circumstances which would require treatment to be performed over a longer period of time. Such extension must be approved by the Administrator. However, in no instance shall any services be covered unless such services are rendered within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the termination of the Insured's coverage. However, this provision was subsequently changed, as set forth in the booklet, effective July 1, 1982, to require that the dentist's written explanation regarding extended treatment must also he submitted within the 120-day period. (Respondent's Exhibits 1-2)
Recommendation That a final order be entered denying Petitioner's claim. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Nevin G. Smith Secretary, Department of Administration Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alex B. Vecchio, Esquire 620 Twiggs Street Tampa, Florida 32602 Daniel Brown, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
