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 Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration is authorized to terminate the participation of Respondent, Ronald M. Marini, D.M.D., P.A., in the Medicaid program.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is designated as the single state agency authorized to make payments for medical assistance and related services under Title XIX of the Social Security Act, otherwise known as the Medicaid program. See §§ 409.902(1) and 409.901(2) and (14), Fla. Stat. AHCA is responsible for administering and overseeing the Medicaid program in the State of Florida. See § 409.913, Fla. Stat. AHCA’s Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity (“MPI”) is the unit within AHCA that oversees the activities of Florida Medicaid providers and recipients. MPI ensures that providers abide by Medicaid laws, policies, and rules. MPI is responsible for conducting audits, investigations, and reviews to determine possible fraud, abuse, overpayment, or neglect in the Medicaid program. See §409.913, Fla. Stat. Dr. Ronald M. Marini established his dental practice, Ronald M. Marini, DMD, PA (Respondent), in 2002. Dr. Marini’s practice focuses primarily on the treatment of children who have dental coverage through Medicaid. Respondent holds an active Medicaid provider agreement with AHCA, and is assigned Medicaid Provider No. 076031500. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an enrolled Florida Medicaid provider authorized to provide dental care to Medicaid beneficiaries and receive reimbursement for covered services rendered to Medicaid recipients. A Medicaid provider agreement is a voluntary contract between AHCA and the provider. As an enrolled Medicaid provider, Respondent is subject to the duly-enacted federal and state statutes, regulations, rules, policy guidelines, and Medicaid handbooks incorporated by reference into rule. See § 409.907, Fla. Stat. For services rendered to Medicaid recipients, AHCA pays Medicaid providers under an honor system. AHCA is authorized to monitor the activities of Medicaid providers and to recover “overpayments.” See §§ 409.913 and 409.9131(5), Fla. Stat. An “overpayment” includes “any amount that is not authorized to be paid by the Medicaid program, whether paid as a result of inaccurate or improper cost reporting, improper claiming, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse, or mistake.” § 409.913(1)(e), Fla. Stat. AHCA is also empowered to impose sanctions against offending Medicaid providers. § 409.9131, Fla. Stat. The dispute between AHCA and Respondent originated in 2014 when AHCA’s MPI unit initiated a review of Respondent’s claims for Medicaid reimbursement for the period of March 1, 2010, through August 31, 2012. Following the MPI unit review, AHCA issued a Final Audit Report on September 19, 2014, informing Dr. Marini that Respondent was overpaid for claims not covered by Medicaid in the amount of $590,008.15. In accordance with section 409.913 and rule 59G-9.070, AHCA notified Respondent that it intended to collect the full amount of the overpayment, plus an administrative fine. Respondent responded by requesting a formal administrative hearing to contest AHCA’s action. Respondent’s overpayment proceeding was eventually heard in DOAH as Agency for Health Care Administration v. Ronald M. Marini, D.M.D., P.A., Case No. 16-5641MPI (the “MPI Hearing”). The matter was assigned to Administrative Law Judge Linzie F. Bogan who conducted a formal administrative hearing on June 28 and 29, 2017. During the MPI Hearing, AHCA presented the testimony (via deposition) of Mark Kuhl, D.M.D. AHCA requested Judge Bogan accept Dr. Kuhl as an expert in the area of rendering dental care and dental medical necessity with respect to Medicaid overpayment. AHCA also offered Dr. Kuhl as a “peer reviewer” pursuant to section 409.9131. On August 29, 2017, Judge Bogan issued a Recommended Order in the MPI Hearing siding with AHCA. Judge Bogan specifically concluded: As determined in the Findings of Facts, [AHCA] met its burden of proof and established for those claims identified herein that Respondent was paid for claims that failed to comply with the laws, rules, and regulations governing Medicaid providers. Marini, Case No. 16-5641MPI, RO at 38. Thereafter, Judge Bogan recommended that AHCA enter a final order that: Revises the Final Audit Report consistent with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein; Recalculates the total overpayment consistent with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein; Requires Respondent to pay interest at the statutorily mandated rate on the recalculated overpayment; and Requires Respondent to pay a fine in the amount of 20 percent of the recalculated overpayment. Marini, Case No. 16-5641MPI, RO at 39. In reaching his decision, Judge Bogan specifically noted that he accepted Dr. Kuhl as an expert “in the areas of rendering dental care and dental medical necessity with respect to Medicaid overpayment cases.” Judge Bogan further accepted Dr. Kuhl “as a peer reviewer pursuant to section 409.9131, Florida Statutes.” Judge Bogan also noted that Dr. Kuhl operates a general dentistry practice where he treats pediatric patients. However, he is not board-certified in any specialty. Marini, Case No. 16-5641MPI, RO at 8. AHCA issued its Final Order on October 27, 2017. In its Final Order, AHCA adopted Judge Bogan’s findings of fact as set forth in his Recommended Order without modification. AHCA also adopted Judge Bogan’s conclusions of law without modification. Marini, Case No. 16-5641MPI, FO at 16. Per Judge Bogan’s recommendations, AHCA calculated that Respondent must repay an overpayment of $424,031.64. AHCA further imposed a fine on Respondent of $84,806.33. Marini, Case No. 16-5641MPI, FO at 16.2 Dr. Marini appealed AHCA’s Final Order to the Fifth District Court of Appeal on November 27, 2017. On April 16, 2019, the Fifth District affirmed the Final Order in a per curiam affirmed decision.3 On May 15, 2019, Dr. Marini appealed the Fifth District’s decision to the Florida Supreme Court. On May 23, 2019, the Supreme Court dismissed Dr. Marini’s appeal stating that the Court: lacks jurisdiction to review an unelaborated decision from a district court of appeal that is issued without opinion or explanation or that merely cites to an authority that is not a case pending review in, or reversed or quashed by, this Court.[4] As of the date of the final hearing, Respondent has not paid to AHCA the full amount of either the overpayment or the fine ordered by the Final 2 Pursuant to section 409.913(25)(c), Respondent was also responsible to pay interest on the overpayment amount of ten percent per year from the date of the Final Order. Marini, Case No. 16-5641MPI, FO at 16. 3 Ronald M. Marini, D.M.D., P.A. v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., 269 So. 3d 558 (5th DCA 2019), review dismissed sub nom. Ronald M. Marini, D.M.D., P.A. v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., No. SC19-843, 2019 WL 2238725 (Fla. May 23, 2019). 4 Ronald M. Marini, D.M.D., P.A. v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., No. SC19-843, 2019 WL 2238725 (Fla. May 23, 2019). Order (a total of $508,837.97). Neither has Respondent entered into an agreement with AHCA to repay the overpayment. Based on Respondent’s failure to reimburse the overpayment or enter into a repayment agreement, on or about January 29, 2020, AHCA initiated this action to terminate Respondent’s participation as a provider in the Medicaid program. AHCA pursues this action based on section 409.913(30), which directs that AHCA: [S]hall terminate a provider’s participation in the Medicaid program if the provider fails to reimburse an overpayment or pay an agency-imposed fine that has been determined by final order, not subject to further appeal, within 30 days after the date of the final order, unless the provider and the agency have entered into a repayment agreement. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 59G-9.070(7)(s). In support of its case, AHCA called Shelby Sauls, a Management Review Specialist for AHCA’s MPI unit. As part of her responsibilities, Ms. Sauls supervises AHCA’s issuance of suspension and termination notices for Medicaid provider agreements. During the hearing, Ms. Sauls reviewed AHCA’s case financial history notes recording all Respondent’s Medicaid payment activity following the MPI Hearing in 2017. Ms. Sauls testified that Respondent still owes over $500,000 of the overpayment and fine ordered in AHCA’s Final Order. Ms. Sauls further relayed that AHCA and Dr. Marini have not entered into a repayment agreement to address the amount Respondent owes to AHCA per the 2017 Final Order. Katrina Derico-Harris also testified for AHCA. Ms. Derico-Harris is an Accounting Services Supervisor II and supervises the Medicaid Accounts Receivable Unit section of AHCA’s Bureau of Financial Services, which handles the majority of Medicaid overpayment collections. Ms. Derico-Harris stated that, as of the date of the final hearing, AHCA has received only one payment from Respondent in the amount of $24.49 on March 5, 2020. Ms. Derico-Harris declared that Respondent owes a current balance of $468,512.54 to AHCA to satisfy the full amount of the overpayment.5 Ms. Derico-Harris also confirmed that Respondent and AHCA have not entered into an agreement to repay the overpayment. Dr. Marini, in challenging AHCA’s decision to terminate Respondent from the Medicaid program, vigorously asserts that the calculation of an overpayment of $424.031.64 in AHCA’s 2017 Final Order was “spoiled fruit” from the beginning. Dr. Marini’s predominant argument is his strenuous objection to AHCA’s presentation of, and the presiding ALJ’s reliance upon, Dr. Kuhl’s testimony at the MPI Hearing. Dr. Marini asserts that the $424,031.64 overpayment amount was based on the testimony of an unqualified dental expert who used “an outrageous formula that turned a supposed overpayment of $3,500 into $590,000.” To support his position, Dr. Marini points to the fact that when Dr. Kuhl rendered his opinion, he was not a Medicaid Dental Provider, he never worked with a Medicaid Dental Provider, and he was not well versed in the use of the Florida Medicaid Dental Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook. Further, Dr. Marini contends that Dr. Kuhl should never have been considered an expert in Medicaid dentistry or children’s dentistry due to the fact that his exposure to children’s dentistry was limited to one to two children per week as compared to the 60-80 children seen per day in Dr. Marini’s practice. Finally, Dr. Marini proclaims that Dr. Kuhl’s “knowledge and use of dental materials was opinion bias and against the acceptable standards presented by the American Dental Association and the manufacturers of dental materials.” 5 Ms. Derico-Harris added that this amount does not include interest from February 10, 2020, to present, for which Dr. Marini is also obligated to pay. Consequently, Dr. Marini argues that Dr. Kuhl’s testimony could not support the finding that Respondent was overpaid by Medicaid, and the ALJ should not have accepted Dr. Kuhl as an expert to testify regarding the validity of Medicaid claims for dental services. Therefore, Dr. Marini emphatically declares that the Final Order issued in 2017 was improperly decided and invalid. In requesting an administrative hearing in the present matter, Dr. Marini hopes to have a “properly vetted and qualified dental expert” review his Medicaid claims. Dr. Marini maintains that Respondent owes nothing more to AHCA than $24.49, which is based on two errors he found in Respondent’s Medicaid claims during the audit period. Dr. Marini voluntarily paid the $24.49 to AHCA on March 5, 2020, which he considers the full amount of the overpayment. Dr. Marini admits that Respondent has not reimbursed AHCA for any amount over the $24.49. Neither has Respondent entered into a repayment agreement with AHCA. At the final hearing, Dr. Marini testified that Dr. Kuhl has never been challenged or properly vetted as an expert. However, contrary to Dr. Marini’s assertions, the record in the MPI Hearing reveals that Respondent had a full and fair opportunity to attack Dr. Kuhl’s competency to testify with respect to Medicaid overpayment claims. Indeed, Dr. Marini (through his legal counsel) frequently and purposefully questioned Dr. Kuhl’s expertise, knowledge, and training.6 More to the point, as further discussed below, Respondent cannot 6 For example, before the final hearing, Respondent and AHCA participated in two depositions of Dr. Kuhl. Prior to Dr. Kuhl’s last deposition, Respondent filed an Objection to Notice of Taking Deposition in Lieu of Live Testimony and Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Mark Kuhl, D.M.D. Following the deposition, Respondent filed another Motion in Limine to Strike Testimony of [AHCA’s] Expert Witness, Mark Kuhl, D.M.D., and Supporting Memorandum of Law. Finally, nine days after the final hearing, Respondent filed a Motion in Opposition to [AHCA’s] Tendering of Mark A. Kuhl, D.M.D., as an Expert in Rendering Dental Care and Dental Medical Necessity With Respect to Medicaid Overpayment Cases. In its motions, Respondent repeatedly urged the ALJ to exclude Dr. Kuhl’s testimony. Respondent argued that Dr. Kuhl did not specialize in pediatric dentistry, therefore Dr. Kuhl did not possess the knowledge, training, or expertise to testify relitigate these issues. AHCA’s Final Order is final and is now beyond appeal. Respondent’s recourse to raise issues regarding AHCA’s overpayment determination was by appeal, which he pursued and ultimately lost. Based on the competent substantial evidence presented at the final hearing, the clear and convincing evidence in the record establishes that Respondent failed to reimburse AHCA for a Medicaid overpayment or pay a fine AHCA imposed by final order. The evidence further establishes that Respondent has not entered into an agreement with AHCA to repay the overpayment or the fine. Accordingly, AHCA met its burden of proving that section 409.913(30) authorizes the termination of Respondent’s participation in the Medicaid program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that AHCA issue a final order terminating Respondent’s participation in the Medicaid program. In its Proposed Recommended Order, AHCA requests that, as the prevailing party, it is entitled to recover all costs incurred in this matter pursuant to section 409.913(23)(a). To the extent that section 409.913(23)(a) applies, jurisdiction is retained to determine the amount of an award of costs, if any. Within 30 days after entry of a final order, either party may file a request for a hearing to determine the amount of appropriate costs. Failure to request a hearing within 30 days after entry of the final order shall be deemed to indicate that the issue of costs has been resolved. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 16th day of July, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald Marini, D.M.D, P.A. 2921 South Orlando Drive, Suite 146 Sanford, Florida 32773 Kimberly Murray, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Mary C. Mayhew, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Stefan Grow, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Shena L. Grantham, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Room 3407B 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Thomas M. Hoeler, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed)
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner must reimburse Respondent for payments totaling $1,140,763.88 that Petitioner received from the Medicaid Program in compensation for the provision of prescription drugs between late-August and November of 1998. Respondent contends that Petitioner is not entitled to retain the payments in question because Petitioner allegedly has failed to demonstrate that it had available during the pertinent period a sufficient quantity of the prescription drugs in question.
Findings Of Fact The parties' Joint Stipulation of Facts and the evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Parties The Agency for Health Care Administration (the “Agency”) is responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program. As one of its duties, the Agency must recover "overpayments . . . as appropriate," the term "overpayment" being statutorily defined to mean "any amount that is not authorized to be paid by the Medicaid program whether paid as a result of inaccurate or improper cost reporting, improper claiming, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse, or mistake." See Section 409.913(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Palm Beach Pharmacy, Inc. (“PBPI”), d/b/a Eddie’s Drug (“Eddie’s”) was, at all times material hereto, a duly contracted Medicaid provider, having entered into a Medicaid Provider Agreement with the Agency and been assigned a Medicaid Provider Number: 106343000. Eddie’s is a Florida licensed pharmacy.1 As an enrolled Medicaid provider, Eddie’s is authorized to dispense drugs and supplies to Medicaid recipients. In return, Eddie’s has agreed to comply with all governing statutes, rules, and policies, including those policies set forth in the Florida Medicaid Prescribed Drug Services Coverage, Limitations and Reimbursement Handbook (the “Handbook”). The Agency, which prepared the Handbook and furnishes it to Medicaid providers, has incorporated the Handbook by reference into Rule 59G-4.250(2), Florida Administrative Code. PBPI, which owned and operated a number of pharmacies (including Eddie’s), maintained its corporate headquarters in West Palm Beach, Florida. Eddie’s was located in Miami, Florida. On July 1, 1998, PBPI acquired a drug store known as Jay’s Drugs (“Jay’s”). Jay’s was located in Miami, Florida, across the street from Eddie’s. Thus, before both stores came under common ownership, they had been competitors. This case arises out of the Agency's attempt to recover alleged overpayments on Medicaid claims for which Eddie’s was paid several years ago. The "audit period" that is the subject of the Agency's recoupment effort is April 1, 1998 to July 31, 1999, although the actual period in controversy is much shorter. From July 1, 1998, until the end of the audit period, PBPI owned and operated both Eddie’s and Jay’s. The Underlying Facts The transactions at the heart of this case occurred between late-August and November of 1998, during which period (the “Focal Period”) Medicaid reimbursed Eddie’s more than $1 million for prescription drugs including Neupogen and Epogen/Procrit (collectively, the “Drugs”). The Drugs are used to treat AIDS patients and persons infected with HIV. Prior to the Focal Period, Eddie’s had not dispensed $1 million worth of the Drugs——or any figure approaching that amount——in three or four months’ time. The reason for the dramatic spike in Eddie’s business is that Eddie’s was dispensing the Drugs to customers of Jay’s pursuant to an arrangement designed to manipulate PBPI’s contractual obligations to the former owner of Jay’s under the purchase and sale agreement by which PBPI had acquired Jay’s. Essentially, the arrangement was this. Jay’s was dispensing the Drugs to a large number (approximately 150) of Medicaid beneficiaries who were receiving treatment at a nearby clinic. Because the Drugs were administered to the patients via intravenous infusion, the clinic typically obtained the Drugs from Jay’s in bulk. To fill these prescriptions, Jay’s ordered the Drugs from a wholesale supplier, which usually delivered the Drugs to Jay’s the next day. At some point before the Focal Period, arrangements were made to have the clinic present its prescriptions for the Drugs to Eddie’s rather than Jay’s.2 The evidence does not show, exactly, how this was accomplished, but whatever the means, the clinic abruptly began bringing prescriptions for the Drugs to Eddie’s.3 This diversion of Jay’s’ business to Eddie’s was intended to deprive Jay’s of Medicaid reimbursements to which Jay’s’ former owner had access as a source of funds for paying down a note that PBPI had given for the purchase of Jay’s. By having Eddie’s dispense the Drugs and submit the Medicaid claims, Medicaid money flowed into Eddie’s’ bank account (rather than Jay’s’ bank account) and hence was not immediately available to the former owner of Jay’s to reduce PBPI’s debt. During the Focal Period, Eddie’s did not purchase the Drugs from a wholesaler but instead acquired them from Jay’s. The process by which this was accomplished involved a pharmacy technician named Wright, who was employed at Eddie’s, and a pharmacist named Shafor, who worked at Jay’s. Wright (at Eddie’s) accepted the prescriptions for the Drugs as the clinic brought them in Then, she called Shafor (at Jay’s) and told him the quantities needed to fill the prescriptions. Shafor ordered the Drugs from a wholesaler, which delivered them in bulk to Jay’s, usually the next day. Upon receiving the Drugs, Shafor personally delivered them to Wright, who, recall, was across the street at Eddie’s. Wright labeled and dispensed the Drugs. Eddie’s submitted a claim for the Drugs to Medicaid, and Medicaid paid Eddie’s. PBPI maintained separate accounting ledgers for Eddie’s and Jay’s, respectively. The company’s accountants recorded the subject transactions in these ledgers so that Jay’s——not Eddie’s——would “recognize” the sales of the Drugs. In a nutshell, this was done through “inter-company” transfers whereby all of the money that Eddie’s received from Medicaid for the Drugs was moved, on the books, into an account of Jay’s. In this way, any profit from the sales of the Drugs (the difference between the wholesale cost of the Drugs and the Medicaid reimbursement therefor, less overhead) was realized on Jay’s’ books.4 The Medicaid payments to Eddie’s that the Agency seeks to recoup were included in four remittance vouchers dated September 2, 1998; September 30, 1998; October 28, 1998; and November 25, 1998, respectively. The September 2 payment to Eddie’s totaled $287,205.52. Of this amount, $276,033.23 reimbursed Eddie’s for dispensing the Drugs. Eddie’s’ accounting ledger reflects that, as of September 30, 1998, the sum of $276,033.23 had been transferred from an account of Eddie’s to an account of Jay’s. The September 30 payment to Eddie’s totaled $439,175.77, of which $432,700.36 was paid in consideration of the Drugs. The October 28 Medicaid payment was $431,753.82, of which total the Drugs accounted for $424,202.76. Eddie’s’ accounting ledger reflects that, as of October 31, 1998, the sum of $870,929.59 (439,175.77 + 431,753.82) had been transferred from an account of Eddie’s to an account of Jay’s. The November 25 payment to Eddie’s totaled $407,088.00. Of this amount, $393,063.00 reimbursed Eddie’s for dispensing the Drugs. Eddie’s’ accounting ledger reflects that, as of November 30, 1998, the sum of $407,088.00 had been transferred from an account of Eddie’s to an account of Jay’s. The Agency’s Allegations On October 31, 2000, the Agency issued its Final Agency Audit Report (“Audit”) in which Eddie’s was alleged to have received $1,143,612.68 in overpayments relating to the Drugs. In the Audit, the Agency spelled out its theory of the case; indeed, the Audit is the only document in the record that does so. The Agency cited several statutory provisions. First, Section 409.913(7)(e), Florida Statutes, was referenced. This section states: When presenting a claim for payment under the Medicaid program, a provider has an affirmative duty to supervise the provision of, and be responsible for, goods and services claimed to have been provided, to supervise and be responsible for preparation and submission of the claim, and to present a claim that is true and accurate and that is for goods and services that: * * * (e) Are provided in accord with applicable provisions of all Medicaid rules, regulations, handbooks, and policies and in accordance with federal, state, and local law. Section 409.913(7)(e), Florida Statutes. The Agency did not allege (or prove), however, that Eddie’s had violated Section 409.913(7)(e), Florida Statutes.5 Put another way, the Agency did not plead or prove lack of supervision, submission of a false claim, or that the Drugs were not provided in accordance with applicable law. Next, the Agency cited Section 409.913(8), Florida Statutes, which provides: A Medicaid provider shall retain medical, professional, financial, and business records pertaining to services and goods furnished to a Medicaid recipient and billed to Medicaid for a period of 5 years after the date of furnishing such services or goods. The agency may investigate, review, or analyze such records, which must be made available during normal business hours. However, 24-hour notice must be provided if patient treatment would be disrupted. The provider is responsible for furnishing to the agency, and keeping the agency informed of the location of, the provider's Medicaid- related records. The authority of the agency to obtain Medicaid-related records from a provider is neither curtailed nor limited during a period of litigation between the agency and the provider. The Agency further alleged, as fact, that Eddie’s had failed, upon request, “to submit invoices from [its] suppliers to substantiate the availability of drugs that [were] billed to Medicaid” and thus had not “fully substantiated such availability.” The Agency, however, did not invoke any of the available remedial provisions as authority to impose a sanction for this alleged failure to turn over Medicaid-related records. See, e.g., Sections 409.913(14)(b), (c), and (d), Florida Statutes. The Agency cited Section 409.913(10), Florida Statutes, which authorizes the Agency to “require repayment for inappropriate, medically unnecessary, or excessive goods or services from the person furnishing them, the person under whose supervision they were furnished, or the person causing them to be furnished.” There was no allegation (or proof), however, that the Drugs which Eddie’s had purported to dispense (i.e. the Drugs for which it had submitted Medicaid claims) were “inappropriate, medically unnecessary, or excessive.” Thus, Eddie’s was not alleged (or shown) to have violated Section 409.913(10), Florida Statutes. Finally, the Agency relied upon Section 409.913(14)(n), Florida Statutes, which is the basis of the Agency’s legal theory. This section provides: The agency may seek any remedy provided by law, including, but not limited to, the remedies provided in subsections (12) and (15) and s. 812.035, if: * * * (n) The provider fails to demonstrate that it had available during a specific audit or review period sufficient quantities of goods, or sufficient time in the case of services, to support the provider's billings to the Medicaid program[.] The Agency contended, additionally, that “[b]illing Medicaid for drugs that have not been demonstrated as available for dispensing is a violation of the Medicaid laws and regulations and has resulted in the finding that [Eddie’s] ha[s] been overpaid by the Medicaid program.” (Emphasis added). The Agency explained, “Medicaid payments that have been substantiated by documented inventory are assumed to be valid; and payments in excess of that amount are regarded to be invalid.” Thus, the Agency’s theory of recovery is that Eddie’s must forfeit “overpayments” arising from its failure to demonstrate the availability, in inventory, of a sufficient quantity of the Drugs for which claims were submitted, as required by Section 409.913(14)(n), Florida Statutes. After the Audit was issued, the Agency accepted a handwritten note regarding the transfer of a small quantity of Drugs from Jay’s to Eddie’s as sufficient to demonstrate the availability of such amount. This resulted in a slight reduction of the amount of the alleged overpayment, to $1,140,763.88. The Separate Audit of Jay’s The Agency conducted a separate audit of Jay’s, concerning which some evidence was introduced at hearing. Without getting into unnecessary detail, the audit of Jay’s revealed that Jay’s had purchased, during and around the Focal Period, a quantity of the Drugs that exceeded the number of units that Jay’s had billed to Medicaid. It was Eddie’s theory that this “excess inventory” of Jay’s matched, more or less, the alleged inventory shortfall at Eddie’s, thereby corroborating the testimony concerning the transfer of these Drugs from Jay’s to Eddie’s for dispensation. At hearing, the parties sharply disputed whether, in fact, Jay’s had transferred the Drugs to Eddie’s. The Agency, of course, maintained that such transfers were not properly documented; Eddie’s argued that the documents and other evidence, including testimony about the transactions in question, adequately demonstrated that the transfers had, in fact, occurred. There was no dispute, however, that if it were found that such transfers had occurred, and if, further, the documents (and other evidence) pertaining to the inventory of Jay’s were accepted as proof of the quantities of Drugs so transferred, then all but $176,078.30 worth of the Drugs could be accounted for. Thus, as counsel for Eddie’s conceded at hearing, the Agency is entitled to recoup some sum of money. The question is whether that sum is $1,140,763.88 or $176,078.30. Ultimate Factual Determination Based on all of the evidence in the record, including the deposition testimony received through the parties’ joint stipulation, it is determined that, more likely than not, Eddie’s had available during the Focal Period a sufficient quantity of the Drugs to support all but $176,078.30 worth of the claims in dispute.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency enter a final order requiring Eddie’s to repay the Agency the principal amount of $176,078.30. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 12th day of March, 2002.
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether certain provisions of the Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan, as adopted in Rule 59G-6.010, Florida Administrative Code, which are relied upon by the AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION to apply a fair rental value system of property reimbursement to Petitioner are invalid under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes (1995). Petitioner also asserts a state and federal constitutional equal protection challenge to the existing rule provisions. (Petitioner’s constitutional issues are preserved, but are not determined in this proceeding.)
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 to the facility. 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. The Florida Medicaid Plan is the result of lengthy workshops and negotiations between the agency and the nursing home industry. The Florida Medicaid Plan complies with federal regulations.
The Issue Is proposed rule 59G-3.010(4)(b)2.c. an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, for reasons described in the respective petitions that formed the basis of this dispute? See Section 120.56(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The party Florida Medical Association, Inc., a not for profit corporation is organized and maintained for the benefit of approximately 17,000 licensed physicians who are its members. It represents the common interests of those members. Some of its members provide services under the terms contemplated by proposed rule 59G-3.010(4)(b)2.c. Likewise, Robert Anthony Savona, D.O.; John F. Hull, D.O.; and Robert Kagan, M.D., as licensed physicians, provide services contemplated by a proposed rule 59G- 3.010(4)(b)2.c. Respondent is the agency responsible for administering the state Medicaid Program under Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1396 et seq. and Section 409.901, et seq. Florida Statutes. This responsibility includes reimbursement of Medicaid providers. Respondent offered the proposed rule for adoption. The services contemplated by proposed rule 59G- 3.010(4)(b)2.c., in which the rule describes a payment mechanism, are in association with patients who are Medicare and Medicaid eligible. The arrangement contemplated by the proposed rule is in relation to Medicaid reimbursable services which complement Medicare. Under the proposed rule, Medicare Supplemental Insurance (Part B) is paid for the deductible and coinsurance for the Medicare and Medicaid eligible recipients by the Medicaid fiscal agent, in accordance with a rate identified in the proposed rule. The recipients of the services from physicians under the proposed rule, eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid benefits, are also referred to as Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries (QMBs). QMBs are described as poor, elderly and disabled persons. In pertinent part the proposed rule states: 59G-3.010 Medicaid Services Complementing Medicare. * * * (4) Medicaid Reimbursable Services which Complement Medicare. * * * (b) Medicare Supplemental Insurance (Part B). * * * 2. The Medicare Part B deductible and coinsurance is paid for the Medicare and Medicaid eligible recipient by the Medicaid fiscal agent at the following rates: * * * c. Physician services, including doctors of medicine, doctors of osteopathy, and providers of chiropractic and podiatric services are reimbursed 100 percent of the deductible and 100 percent of the coinsurance only to the extent that the total payment received does not exceed the Medicaid fee for the service provided. If there is no comparable Medicaid fee for the service, the Medicaid fee is calculated to be 50 percent of the Medicare approved charge for the service provided. In these situations, whether the physician did or did not receive a payment from Medicaid, by billing Medicaid he is bound to the Medicaid payment schedule as payment in full. Other parts of proposed rule 59G-3.010(4)(b)2. at a., b., d., and e. address Medicare Part B deductibles and coinsurance for other providers as follows: Part B patient hospital services are reimbursed 100 percent of the deductible and coinsurance. Rural health centers, federally qualified health centers and county health departments are reimbursed their encounter rate minus the amount of Medicare's payment. * * * Pharmacy providers are reimbursed 100 percent of the deductible and 100 percent of the coinsurance only to the extent that the total payment does not exceed the Medicaid fee for the service provided. Other Part B suppliers are reimbursed 100 percent of the coinsurance and 100 percent of deductible. Under Medicare Part B, 80 percent of reasonable costs or charges for the delivery of health care to Medicare eligible patient is paid through the Medicare program as a premium. That program is administered by the federal government under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C., Section 1395 et seq. That payment is a form of insurance. The remaining 20 percent is anticipated to be paid by the patient as copayments or coinsurance, in addition to an annual deductible. The proposed rule in relation to physician services addresses the manner in which some portion of the 20 percent is "crossed-over" to be paid for potential payment through the Medicaid program administered by Respondent using federal and state funding, pursuant to Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C., Section 1396 et seq. and Section 409.901 et seq., Florida Statutes. Payment to the physicians for their services in relation to the deductible and coinsurance depends upon the application of the formula in the proposed rule. The formula contemplates reimbursement to the physicians at less than 100 percent of the deductible and 100 percent of the coinsurance because the Medicaid fee schedule is generally lower than the federal Medicare fee schedule for the same services. In fact, in most cases the physicians will receive no payment for the deductible or coinsurance above the 80 percent payment under the Medicare fee structure in relation to the basic Medicare premium. By comparison to other health care and service providers discussed in the proposed rule, some other individuals and entities are reimbursed at 100 percent of the deductible and coinsurance and others are not guaranteed reimbursement at 100 percent. The formulas for reimbursement for services provided under the proposed rule related to Medicare Part B deductible and coinsurance are influenced by the results of quarterly estimating conferences held between legislative and executive branch staff. Those estimators, within respective categories of services, examine the performance of the various categories of services concerning fiscal impact through a comparison of available revenues against expenditures. This assists in the preparation of future budgets upon the recommendation of the governor to be passed by the legislature. Respondent assists in preparation of budget requests, to include recommendation for policy changes related to the amount of expenditures for the various services performed for the benefit of Medicare and Medicaid eligible recipients, QMBs, who are entitled to the payment of their deductible and coinsurance under Medicare Part B. However, the impetus for the reimbursement formula for physician services described in the proposed rule has a more precise origin, for reasons now explained. A prior version of Rule 59G-3.010(4), Florida Administrative Code in effect on April 8, 1996, was challenged in an administrative proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings. That version limited the amount of reimbursement for physician services associated with Medicare Part B deductible and coinsurance in a different manner than the proposed rule. In the decision of Reynolds v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 18 F.A.L.R. 3474 (Fla. DOAH 1996) the rule was held invalid. Among the cases cited for this decision was Pennsylvania Medical Society v. Snider, 29 F.3d 886 (3d Cir. 1994) and Haynes Ambulance Service, Inc. v. State of Alabama, 36 F.3d 1974 (11th Cir. 1994). The federal court cases refer to the recipients of cost reimbursement for deductibles and coinsurance as QMBs. Essentially, they are the same persons who are described in the proposed rule as Medicare and Medicaid eligible. Although the rule had been declared invalid, Respondent continued to exercise the policy of denying payment of Medicare deductibles and coinsurance on physician crossover claims at 100 percent of the deductible and 100 percent of the coinsurance as contemplated by the federal court cases. Following Respondent's return to the policy of not paying the deductible and coinsurance at 100 percent for physician services, Petitioner's Savona, Hull, and Kagan brought a lawsuit in federal count to compel payment for physician services to QMBs at the Medicare rate. On March 3, 1997, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida granted a final injunction that required Respondents to pay the physician class in the lawsuit at the Medicare rate for services provided to QMBs. See Savona v. Cook, Case No. 4:96CV14-WS (N.D. Fla. 1997). After the decision in Savona, Respondent pursued a policy of paying the deductible and coinsurance at 100 percent of the Medicare rate. This policy lasted from March 3, 1997 until October 1, 1997. To facilitate the payment for physician services at 100 percent of the Medicare rate for the crossover claims related to the deductible and coinsurance, Respondent amended its state Medicaid plan, with the federal Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA). In addition, Respondent sought an appropriation through the legislature to fund the increase in copayments to assure that physician services were reimbursed at 100 percent of the Medicare rate for the deductible and coinsurance. This led to the passage of Chapter 97-152, Laws of Florida, Item 248, the 1997-98 General Appropriations Act, which set aside monies from the General Revenue Fund and from the Medical Care Trust Fund, totaling $87 million for Medicare Part B copayment for reimbursement of physician services for the dually eligible recipients. This refers to recipients eligible for services under Medicare and Medicaid. The 1997-98 fiscal year for that appropriation began July 1, 1997, and continues until June 30, 1998. The amount appropriated has proven more than adequate to meet the copayment for physician services at the 100 percent Medicare rate. Another document, prepared by persons unknown, was associated with the appropriations process for 1997-98. That document is referred to as Respondent's Ex No. 1 and is entitled 1997-98 General Appropriations and Summary Statement of Intent. It sets out the exact language in Chapter 97-152, Laws of Florida, Item 248, related to the $87 million for full Medicare Part B copayment for physician services. It also sets out a summary statement of intent that is not found within the General Appropriations Act. The language in that summary statement of intent is as follows: It is the intent of the Legislature that the funds in Specific Appropriation 248 which are provided to pay the full Medicare part B co- payment for physician services to clients who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, be expended only to the extent currently required by federal law. In the event that changes in federal law relating to reimbursement for these services occurs, the Agency for Health Care Administration shall directly submit to the federal Health Care Financing Administration any amendments to the state Medicaid Plan which are necessary to realize cost savings options permitted by and in compliance with federal law. As anticipated by the summary statement of intent, federal law relating to reimbursement for physician services did change in August of 1997 when Congress enacted the Congressional Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Section 4714. In pertinent part it stated: * * * (2) In carrying out paragraph (1), a State is not required to provide any payment for any expenses incurred relating to payment for deductibles, coinsurance or copayments for medicare cost-sharing to extent that payment under title XVIII for the service would exceed the payment amount that otherwise would be made under the State plan under this title for such service if provided to an eligible recipient other than a medicare beneficiary. That law became effective October 1, 1997. By its terms it created the option for states to reduce payments on crossover claims to the state Medicaid rate, although it did not mandate that outcome. The payment option created by the congressional enactment had application to all categories of providers. In view of the Congressional Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Respondent decided to change its payment policy to disallow payment for physician services at the 100 percent Medicare rate in all instances for physician services related to the deductible and coinsurance for dually eligible recipients. The effective date of the change in policy was October 1, 1997, coinciding with the effective date of the Congressional Budget Act. Respondent implemented its policy change without the benefit of rule adoption. The failure to implement the payment policy by rule adoption was challenged in the case of Savona v. Agency for Health Care Administration, DOAH Case No. 97-5909RU (Fla. DOAH 1998). On January 16, 1998, Respondent gave notice of rule development, to include the preliminary text of the rule. For this reason, the February 12, 1998, order entered in DOAH Case No. 97-5909RU denied the petition for determination of invalidity of the non-rule policy brought in accordance with Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes. Consistent with its notice of rule development, Respondent published notice of proposed rulemaking pertaining to the rule under challenge here. That publication was made on February 13, 1998, through the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 24, No. 7. The specific authority for rule promulgation was Section 409.919, Florida Statutes, and the law to be implemented was Section 409.908, Florida Statutes. No mention was made of the summary statement of intent associated with the 1997-98 General Appropriations Act in Florida and the Congressional Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The testimony of Richard T. Lutz, Director of the Division of State Health Purchasing, Agency for Health Care Administration, at hearing established his reliance upon those latter two items as authority for promulgating the proposed rule in relation to the copayment for physician services under Medicare Part B, for the deductible and coinsurance. Mr. Lutz was principally responsible for the promulgation of the rule as policymaker for the Respondent. In addressing the difference in the reimbursement policies for physician services, contrasted with other services detailed in the proposed rule, Mr. Lutz indicated that changes in relation to reimbursement policies, other than for physicians, would be the product of an estimating conference showing the financial impact of the changes, followed by a budget item to effect the changes. In the absence of that impetus, Mr. Lutz described that he had been instructed that the methodologies that were in place for various services under Medicare Part B utilizing established methodologies for the reimbursement practices would remain in effect. Unlike the circumstances existing in the proposed rule, for classes of providers other than physicians, Mr. Lutz in behalf of Respondent took the initiative in dealing with reimbursement for physicians care under Medicare Part B when promulgating the proposed rule. He concluded that the terms of the federal court order in Savona were subject to the language in the summary statement of intent, and with the advent of the Congressional Balanced Budget Act of 1997 Respondent was at liberty to change its reimbursement scheme for physician services effective October 1, 1997. In making the policy choice to promulgate the proposed rule, Mr. Lutz recognized the option which Florida had to either limit copayments or continue copayments at the Medicare rate for physician services under Medicare Part B. In promulgating the proposed rule Mr. Lutz identified that the Agency did not consider language in Section 409.908(13), Florida Statutes. He did indicate in his testimony the belief that the preamble to Section 409.908, Florida Statutes, creates authority for promulgation of the proposed rule in its comment about the Respondent's ability to make payments in accordance with methodologies that are set forth in its rules, manuals, and handbooks, consistent with limitations placed in the General Appropriations Act and any statement of legislative intent. Mr. Lutz in promulgating the proposed rule recognized that the physician services under Medicare Part B copayment for deductible and coinsurance would eventuate in no payment beyond the 80 percent premium in many instances. Although Mr. Lutz expresses the opinion that the proposed rule for payment of physician services under Medicare Part B has retroactive application to October 1, 1997, he acknowledges that the language in the proposed rule makes no reference to its retroactivity to that date.
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
