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 or not certain cost items disallowed in the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' audit report of Fountainhead Nursing and Convalescent Home, Respondent, for fiscal year ending June 30, 1977, were proper and, therefore, should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact During the course of the hearing, there was little dispute regarding the facts here involved. By letter dated March 21, 1979, Saul H. Silverman, C.P.A., requested an administrative hearing for the Fountainhead Nursing and Convalescent Home, Petitioner, provider No. 20043-0, due to certain audit adjustments based on an audit of the provider's Medicaid Cost Report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1977. The audit in question was performed by Laventhol & Horwath, C.P.A.'s under contact with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Tallahassee, Florida. Bamberg, Superstein & Co., Certified Public Accountants, represent the Petitioner, Ni-Bud, Inc., T/A fountainhead Nursing and Convalescent Home, 390 Northeast 135th Street, North Miami, Florida, and prepared the Medicaid Cost Report for June 30, 1977. The Petitioner requested a hearing based on a disagreement with the following adjustments made by the auditors: 1. Administrator's compensation disallowed disallowed $37,162.00 2. Medical records expense disallowed 465.00 3. Oxygen income offset of expense 1,078.00 4. Method of computing Medicaid per diem cost by using cost finding methods not reflected in the instructions for preparation of the Cost Reports. During the hearing, Respondent agreed to permit the allowance for oxygen which had been previously disallowed provided Petitioner establish via documentation that the costs reflected for oxygen were, in fact, used only for emergencies. Documentation to that effect has been submitted and the oxygen income offset expense is no longer at issue herein. Additionally, based on an audit update received July 5, 1979, a review of the medical records expense, which expense was previously disallowed, was allowed during the updated audit. Therefore, the medical records expense is no longer at issue. What is remaining at issue herein are the items respecting the Administrator's compensation and the method of computing Medicaid per diem costs by using cost findings methods not reflected in the instructions for preparation of cost reports. The amount disallowed for the Administrator's compensation was an amount of $37,162. The total compensation allowed for the Administrator, Joseph Mossey, was $61,140. In the auditor's determination, a reasonable compensation for the Administrator was $23,978. Petitioner disallowed what it determined to be a "bonus" as such was not related to patient care. Kenneth Conners, Jr., an employee of Petitioner in the auditing section, appeared and testified respecting the manner in which cost adjustments are made. He testified that the cost reports submitted are primarily used for prior years and to determine interim per diem rates for the following year. He testified that cost reports result in no adjustment for Medicare rates and administrator's salary. He testified that with respect to the issues surrounding the disallowance of the Administrator's "bonus," the question centered around whether the money was in fact earned. Additionally, he testified that consideration is given to whether the "bonus" is reasonable; whether it is related to patient care and that in reaching a decision, consideration is given to allowable costs for bonuses in similar facilities in various regions of the country. Conners testified that based on figures contained in a publication issued by Commerce Clearing House, Inc. (CCH), the Administrator's bonus disallowed for this facility was proper. For example, he pointed out that in the Arkansas region the lower figure for comparable administrators is $19,500, with an upper range of $30,000. In Texas, the lower compensation is around $15,000, an upper range is $37,000 and the mean figure is $24,600. In New York, a similar figure results in compensation in the lower range of $8,100, an upper range is $32,500 and a mean compensation figure is 419,600. Conners cited a $9,000 lower range in California, an upper range of $26,00 and a median of $15,000. In Florida, the lower range for a comparable facility was $12,297, an upper range of $67,044 and a mean range of $19,588. He testified that when making its determination, Respondent utilizes a manual, HIM Section 22.01(2) and the guiding standard therein is whether or not the amounts are reasonable and related to patient care. Petitioner disagrees with Respondent's determination and points out that inasmuch as its Administrator, Joseph Mossey, is not a stockholder of the Respondent corporation, Ni-Bud, Inc., and is not related in any manner to any stockholder of the corporation, the amount that should be allowable compensation for him is not governed by the rules for owner's compensation as contained in regulation Section 405.425 and HIM-15-1, Chapter 9. Instead, he pointed out that the general rule of reasonableness, necessity, prudent buyer concept and expenses related to patient care are the pertinent considerations (Regulations 405.451 and HIM-15-1, Chapter 21) and should controlling. It is undisputed that Mr. Mossey's function as an administrator is necessary and related to patient care. The disagreement thus, centers around the reasonableness of the compensation and whether the Respondent's owners were acting as "prudent buyers" as that concept applies to the Medicaid reimbursement. As stated, Mr. Mossey is not an owner of the facility and, therefore, all employment contracts and compensation arrangements must be assumed to have been negotiated at "arms length." Regulation Section 405.451(c)(2) and (3). Subsections (2) and (3) of the above regulation provide in pertinent part that: The cost of provider's services vary from one provider to another and the variations generally reflect differences in scope of services and intensity of care. The provision entitled XVIII of the act for the payment of reasonable cost of services is intended to meet the actual cost, however widely they may vary from one institution to another. This is subject to a limitation where a particular institution's costs are found to be substantially out of line with other institutions in the same area which are similar in size, scope of services, utilization and other relevant factors. The determination of reasonable costs of services must be based on costs related to the care of beneficiaries of Title XVIII of the act. Reasonable cost includes all necessary and proper expenses incurred in rendering services, such as administrative costs, maintenance costs, and premium payments for employee health and pension plans. It includes both direct and indirect costs and normal standby costs. However, where the provider's operating costs include amounts not related to patient care, specifically not reimbursable under the program, or flowing from the provision of luxury items or services, (that is, those items of services substantially in excess of or more expensive than those generally considered necessary for the provision of needed health services), such amount will not be allowable. The reasonable cost basis of reimbursement contemplates that the providers of services will be reimbursed the actual cost for providing quality care, however widely the actual costs may vary from provider to provider and from time to time for the same provider. HIM-15-Part I, Section 2103 entitled, "Prudent Buyer," states that: In those cases where an intemediary notes that a provider pays more than a going price for a supply or service, in the absence of clear justification for the premium, the intermediary will exclude excess cost in determining allowable costs under Medicare. There is no question but that Mr. Mossey's compensation is higher than the average nursing home administrator. Respondent contends that Mr. Mossey's duties, management skills and background justify this higher than normal rate of compensation. Joseph Mossey, Administrator of the subject facility since October 1970, appeared at the hearing and testified respecting his background and duties at the provider. He testified that prior to becoming an administrator for the subject facility, he had been a supervisor in nusing services for Eastman Kodak Company. Prior thereto, he had operated a nursing home in Saudi Arabia and had also served as a private duty nurse. At the outset of his employment relationship with the provider, he initially hired a more competent staff and paid better salaries to recruit, attract and retain competent employees. He testified that since becoming administrator in 1970, the facility has enjoyed an excellent rating from the Respondent, resulting in only one citation during 1977 and two citations in 1978, none of which were related to patient care. Additionally, he testified that he is on call twenty-four hours daily and that he is called upon to answer and respond to all emergency situations and make emergency policy decisions. During the first seven years of his employment as administrator, which of couse covers part of the period in question, Mossey worked seven days a week plus holidays. Mossey attends seminars and workshops on a continuous basis and keeps abreast of changing trends in nursing home care. This aids in enabling him to better provide quality care at a reasonable rate. Evidence reveals that Mr. Mossey's experience and management skills have kept the rise in the cost of providing care of the subject facility at levels far below industry averages. The following is the cost per patient day at the facility, excluding fixed expenses, since 1970. FISCAL YEAR JUNE 30, AMOUNT PERCENT OF CHANGE 1970 $10.53 -0- 1971 9.95 -5.5 1972 9.57 -3.8 1973 9.41 -1.7 1974 9.82 +4.3 1975 11.41 +16.1 1976 12.50 +9.5 1977 13.76 +10.1 1978 15.25 +10.8 Since 1970, the cost per day is up approximately 45 percent or about 5.6 percent per year on average. During the same period, evidence reveals that the coinsurance rate paid by Medicare patients, which is set up annually by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare and based on the average per diem charge in a hospital, has gone up form $5.50 to $18.00, or 177 percent. This, of course, reflects a higher rate of cost increase in the healthcare industry as a whole, then in the Respondent's case. It appears that the Respondent is thus keeping the cost of operating the nursing home lower than the norm and, of course, a derivative benefit to the State Medicaid/Medicare Program through a lower reimbursement rate. Industry surveys indicate that from 1972 through 1976 nursing home costs increased 45.56 percent. The Respondent's costs for the same period increased by 25.6 percent. Since July 1, 1974, when Medicaid initiated their cost related reimbursement rates, the Respondent has consistently been under the maximum cost reimbursement cap set by the Medicaid program. The following examples are illustrative: YEAR REIMBURSEMENT RATE CAP 1974 $493.00 $550.00 1975 527.00 600.00 1976 575.00 630.00 1977 615.00 680.00 1978 600.00 2/ 778.00 The State cap, which represents the level at which approximately 60 percent of Florida nursing homes being run efficiently would be fully reimbursed for their costs, has risen 41.5 percent. Contrawise, the Respondent's rate has risen only 21.8 percent. Mr. Mossey has thus kept his costs lower than the industry average. This cost savings of approximately $3.18 per patient day more than compensates for the $.71 per day cost of Mr. Mossey's higher than average compensation. Therefore, it appears that the Respondent was justified in paying a higher than normal compensation to its Administrator under the prudent buyer and reasonableness concepts. I shall so recommend. The final item of contention is the cost finding method used by the auditors to determine Medicaid's share of the Respondent's operating costs. The auditors used a two-step method of allocation. First, the auditors determine allowable costs for the entire nursing home. Next, the auditors remove the patient days and costs of services for Medicare patients. It should be noted, that the entire facility is Medicaid certified. Using the remaining patient days and costs, the auditors calculated the per diem amount to be used to allocate operating costs to Medicaid patients. The Medicare costs and patient days removed were determined from the facility's Medicare Cost Report filed with that program. Medicare, however, uses a more sophisticated method of allocating costs than Medicaid. Medicaid is a full coverage program but all services, for example, physical therapy, speech therapy and drugs, are not covered by Medicaid. It is the Medicaid payments that are here involved and which Petitioner contends are computed after deductions and operating costs are made for those costs associated with Medicare. Based on the July 5, 1979, audit update report, a revision adding back a net effect for recomputing the Medicare adjustment based on audited Medicare cost reports resulted in an overpayment figure of $24,887 to the provider. Respondent contends that making the adjustments here involved resulted in removing costs which affect the average cost per patient day. It is also contended that the majority of those deductions come from the full-care patients which have the highest per diem cost and this results in lower payments to the provider. Responder urges that by isolating Medicare costs and removing them from the remaining costs for the nursing home prior to calculating the per diem cost of operation, the auditors have violated the Medicaid principles of reimbursement. Finally, Respondent contends that based on cost report instructions and instructions received from the Medicare program which is based on that program's more sophisticated cost reimbursement formula, the auditors should not enter into the calculation, the nursing home's determination of costs allocated to the Medicaid program. The Social Security Health Insurance Act in 42. U.S. COde 1395(x)(v)(i)(a), is the guiding standard for determining cost payments for the Medicaid/medicare program reimbursement formulas. That section provides in pertinent part that: The reasonable costs of any services shall be the costs actually incurred, excluding therefrom any part of the incurred costs found to be unnecessary in the efficient delivery of needed health services, and shall be determined in accordance with regulations establishing the method or methods to be used, and the items to be included . . . such regulations shall (i) take into account both direct and indirect cost of providers of services (excluding therefrom any such costs, including standby costs, which are determined in accordance with regulations to be unnecessary in the efficient delivery of services covered by the insurance programs established under this title) in order that, under the methods of determining costs, the necessary costs of efficiently delivering covered services to individuals covered by the insurance programs established by this title would not be borne by individuals not so covered, and the costs with respect to individuals not so covered will not be borne by such insurance program. . . . Regulations promulgated in accordance with the above statute are contained in 42 CFR 405.451(b)(l) which provides in pertinent part that: The objective is that in determining costs, the costs with respect to individuals covered by the program will not be borne by individuals not so covered, and the costs with respect to individuals not so covered will not be borne by the program. Considertion of the above-quoted provisions require that all costs relating to Medicare patients be separated out in determining the costs for which reimbursements will be made under Medicaid. The Medicare adjustments here presented are for the purpose of accomplishing this objective and/or adjustments that the Respondent is required to make. From the foregoing, it is concluded that the revised update audit report dated July 2, 1979, properly gives consideration to the requirements of the above-quoted provisions. It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Fountainhead Nursing Convalescent Home be required to remit the overpayments as reflected in the July 2, 1979, audit update, or in lieu thereof, that these overpayments be deducted from future Medicaid payments to Respondent. Additionally, it is recommended that the Petitioner credit the Respondent with the amount of $37,162 for fiscal year ending June 30, 1977, which amount represents the amount previously disallowed for the Administrator's compensation. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of August 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether Respondent, Florida Hospital Orlando (Respondent or FHO), was overpaid by Medicaid for care provided to patients in the amount of $34,644.10, as alleged by Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (Petitioner or AHCA); or, as Respondent maintains, such care was medically necessary and supported by the record presented in this cause. Petitioner also maintains an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000.00 is warranted in this matter and that it is entitled to recover costs associated with the case in the sum of $7,635.27.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of monitoring the Medicaid Program in Florida. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is the federal agency which administers Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. CMS initiated an audit of Respondent’s Medicaid claims and contracted with Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH), a Medicaid Integrity Contractor, to perform the audit. At all times material to the instant audit, Respondent was enrolled as a Medicaid provider, governed by a Medicaid Provider Agreement, and subject to all pertinent Medicaid rules and regulations related to the provision of Medicaid goods and services to Medicaid recipients/patients. Respondent was required to retain records documenting goods and services billed to the Medicaid program for a period of not less than five years. All of the disputed claims occurred within that five-year period. BAH requested medical records pertinent to the claims and FHO produced medical records in response to BAH’s audit. Respondent intended to produce all of its medical records as requested by BAH. Respondent's Medicaid Provider No. was 0010129001. All services provided to Medicaid patients are billed and identified by patient name, date of service, and provider. For purposes of confidentiality, the names of patients are redacted in audit proceedings. All goods and services billed to Medicaid must be medically necessary. If an audit determines that goods or services billed to Medicaid were, in fact, not medically necessary, Petitioner is entitled to recover monies paid as an overpayment claim against the Medicaid provider. The amount of the alleged overpayment is the subject of this proceeding. Before a Medicaid provider is authorized to bill Medicaid for medical goods and services rendered to a patient, several checks are considered. First, the patient must be Medicaid-eligible. There is no dispute that all recipients of care in this case were Medicaid-eligible patients. Second, before an inpatient stay is reimbursable, a Medicaid provider must seek prior authorization. To do so, at all times material to this case, AHCA enlisted the assistance of, and contracted with, KePro South (KePro) to perform utilization management for inpatient hospital services for Medicaid recipients. This meant the Medicaid provider contacted KePro by e-mail through a system known as "I-Exchange." In this case, FHO followed the protocol and requested prior approval for all of the claims at issue that required prior approval. All claims at issue were either approved by KePro or were exempt from the authorization requirement. Petitioner agrees that Respondent followed all of the protocols for approval of claims through the KePro system. Respondent agrees that all claims at issue as identified in the final audit report (FAR) were billed and paid. KePro approval does not mean goods and services billed to Medicaid are, in fact, medically necessary. All patient records for the claims at issue have been re-visited in the course of this case and have been thoroughly debated by doctors for both parties. In summary, AHCA's expert, Dr. Ferdinand Richards, opined that the records for the disputed claims do not support the "medical necessity" for the claims paid by Medicaid. In contrast, Dr. John Busowski and Dr. Ross Edmundson opined that the disputed claims were accurately billed and all care rendered was medically necessary. Medicaid has a "pay and chase" policy of paying Medicaid claims submitted by providers. Audits performed after-the-fact reconcile the amounts paid to providers with the amounts that were payable under the Medicaid guidelines, pertinent rules, and law. The Medicaid provider agreement executed between the parties governs the contractual relationship between FHO and AHCA. The parties do not dispute that the provider agreement, together with the pertinent laws or regulations, control the billing and reimbursement of the claims that remain at issue. The provider agreement pertinent to this case was voluntarily entered into by the parties. Although Respondent claims it could not negotiate the terms of the agreement, it is undisputed that Respondent agreed to be bound by the agreement. Respondent was not obligated to become a Medicaid provider. Any Medicaid provider whose billing is not in compliance with the Medicaid billing policies may be subject to the recoupment of Medicaid overpayments. Medicaid providers are aware that they may be audited. Audits are to assure that providers bill and receive payment in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. Respondent does not dispute Petitioner's authority to perform audits. If services rendered in this case were medically necessary, Petitioner does not dispute the amount billed as accurately reflecting the services. There is no question that Respondent provided the services identified in the disputed claims. For billing purposes, this case centers on three types of billing practices dictated by the medical circumstances of the patient. A Medicaid patient may be treated in an emergency room setting and once the presenting condition is addressed the stay may be considered outpatient, observation, or inpatient depending on the nature of the patient’s illness. Outpatient services may also be appropriate when a patient presents for a scheduled test or procedure. Observation services may be appropriate when additional time is needed to evaluate a patient’s condition. Inpatient care is dictated when the patient requires medical services or treatments because the severity of an illness or condition dictates an intensity of care that could not be provided at a less acute level. The levels of care at issue in this case are defined and specified in the Medicaid Hospital Services Coverage and Limitation Handbook and by Florida Administrative Code Rule. In this case, the disputed claims center on whether the claims were billed at the appropriate level of care. That is, if billed at the inpatient level should the claim have been billed as observation or outpatient? If billed as observation, should the claim have been billed as outpatient? Each disputed claim is listed and explained below. Each claim is described and evaluated based upon the medical documentation available to the treating physician at the time the services were rendered. The expert opinions of the parties’ witnesses have been fully considered and weighed in reaching the findings noted. The first five claims, identified as Adventist-FL-3006, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11, concerned a three-year-old patient with Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia. The child required five separate intravenous chemotherapy treatments. The five claims ($1,503.04 per day) were billed at an inpatient rate. For each of the claims, the patient’s hospital stay was for less than 24 hours, the patient had no significant complications from the treatments, and was able to return home at the conclusion of the treatment. Based upon the weight of the persuasive evidence in this case, it is determined that these claims should have been billed as scheduled outpatient services. Petitioner is entitled to recoup the difference between the inpatient rate and an outpatient rate for these five claims. The amount of the overpayment is $7,515.20. Claim Adventist-FL-3006-21 concerned a 40-year-old morbidly obese female who went to the hospital emergency room (ER) on July 28, 2007. This patient complained of shortness of breath and chest pains. By history, it was known this patient had bipolar disorder, sarcoidosis, hypertension, and a record of being non-compliant with medications. A pulmonary function test was administered by ER staff and it was discovered the patient was at 50 percent of the expected function level. Although the initial admission to inpatient status was well documented, the record in this case is deficient, and the physicians who reviewed the record could not indicate why a four-day admission was required for this patient. Once the patient was provided a treatment for asthma (including IV steroids) and the evaluation for congestive heart failure proved negative, the patient should have been discharged. Based upon the weight of the persuasive evidence in this case, it is determined that this claim should be discounted to only two days of inpatient stay and not the four days billed. The exact amount of the overpayment for this claim cannot be determined from the evidence but is less than the $5,723.60 claimed by Petitioner. Claim Adventist-FL-3006-22, involved the same patient as described in paragraph 14. Less than two months after the visit described above, the patient returned to the ER with mild wheezing, and the patient was admitted for three days as an inpatient. Given the history of this patient, and the lack of significant change to the presenting symptoms, it is determined that the weight of the persuasive evidence would require this claim to be reduced to two days of observation, not inpatient services. This patient did not have a medical condition to justify a three-day stay. It may have been that the patient needed a place to stay, and her shortness of breath was a convenient excuse for her to seek medical attention; in any event, she did not have a medical condition of the acuity requiring a multi-day inpatient stay. Respondent does not turn patients away. Nevertheless, Medicaid does not provide for housing of patients who need care other than to meet medical needs. It is undoubted Respondent provided a meaningful service to this patient, but the level of medical care is not supported by the record in this case. AHCA is entitled to recover $2,717.52 for this claim. The next disputed claim, Adventist-FL-3006-30, concerned a 31-year-old male who went to the ER after having thrown-up blood. The patient reported a history of blood in his stools and gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Although the patient’s vital signs were normal, and there was no evidence of bleeding in the ER, the patient was admitted to the intensive care inpatient unit (ICU) and monitored. After a period of time in the ICU, it was noted that the patient’s hemodynamic was stable and he was moved to a “step down” inpatient room. The weight of the persuasive evidence would require this claim to be reduced to two days of observation services not the two days of inpatient billed. The record does not support any acuity requiring intensive care services. Moreover, the endoscopy resulted in normal findings. Had the endoscopy been performed on admission, the normal findings could have ruled out the need for inpatient services. In this case, the treating physician did not think the patient’s condition required an emergency endoscopy. Based upon that determination and the patient’s normal hemoglobin and hematocrit, it was unlikely the patient required more than observation. Giving Respondent the benefit of the doubt with regard to this claim, and assuming this patient required more care than observation to rule out a more acute illness, that determination could have easily been concluded within a one-day inpatient stay. AHCA accepts a two-day observation stay for this patient thereby reducing the overpayment to $2,716.18 for this claim. Adventist-FL-48 claim was a 44-year-old male who, while working on a ladder, touched a live electrical wire. This patient was taken by rescue squad to the ER and presented with atrial fibrillation. The patient was admitted to inpatient status, and it was recommended he be given a full cardiac work- up. At some point during his ER stay, and prior to the cardiac testing, the patient returned to a normal cardiac rhythm. Against the recommendation of medical staff, the patient left the hospital. Approximately three days later this patient returned to the ER and requested the cardiac testing he had declined on his prior visit. When he returned, the patient had a normal heart rhythm, had no other symptoms to suggest a cardiac irregularity, and had normal vital signs. Instead of billing the cardiac testing as outpatient services, the patient was admitted for inpatient status and given the full complement of cardiac tests to rule out any adverse cardiac condition resulting from the electrical shock. The weight of persuasive evidence supports that the testing should have been given with this patient in an outpatient status. There was no medical instability supporting a more acute setting for the testing that was done. The overpayment for this claim is $1,503.04. The patient described in Adventist-FL-78 claim was a 63-year-old female who went to the ER with stomach discomfort, nausea, and headache. It was feared the patient was in a cardiac-related condition as the patient had multiple risk factors including atrial fibrillation. By history, the patient had suffered a heart attack in the recent past, and the ER physician rightly admitted the patient for inpatient care to perform a cardiac work-up and to rule out any cardiac event. The inpatient stay was for a 24-hour period so that the testing could be concluded. The weight of persuasive evidence supports this stay. Respondent has shown the medical necessity for the treatment provided for this patient. Adventist-FL-96 claim concerned a patient with a significant bone marrow disorder similar to leukemia. The patient had had a bone marrow transplant. Upon admission to the hospital he suffered nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. He was admitted for a one-day inpatient stay and treated for dehydration. He was given a white blood count test and once stabilized was discharged (within 24 hours) with the recommendation that the patient return to his regular provider in Tampa. The weight of persuasive evidence supports this stay. Respondent has shown the medical necessity for the treatment provided for this patient. The patient in Adventist-FL-98 claim was a 45-year-old male with a history of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), smoking, and alcohol abuse. The patient had a history of hospitalizations related to COPD and upon admission complained of shortness of breath. At the time of admission, the patient had normal vital signs, acceptable oxygen saturation levels, no wheezing, and a chest x-ray that showed no acute abnormalities. The weight of persuasive evidence supports the finding that a level of care of observation, and not inpatient, was the correct level Respondent should have billed for this patient. The patient had no medical acuity to support a one-day inpatient stay. AHCA is entitled to recover the overpayment in the amount of $1,358.09. AHCA no longer disputes Adventist-FL-154 claim. Consequently, the overpayment associated with the audit must be reduced by $3,856.68. It is determined Respondent accurately billed for this claim. Similarly, Respondent no longer disputes claims Adventist-FL-155-156. These claims should have been billed as observation, not inpatient stays. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to recover the overpayment associated with these claims in the amount of $2,672.98. The patient associated with Adventist-FL-180 claim was a 53-year-old female with a history of breast cancer and metastatic disease. On the date of her admission, she had had radiation therapy. She suffered nausea and vomiting and presented to the ER. She received an IV of fluids and IV Zofran, felt better, and left the hospital against medical advice. In total, the patient was in the hospital approximately three hours or less. The claim billed her admission as inpatient. This claim should have been billed as observation. Accordingly, the weight of persuasive evidence supports that an overpayment occurred with regard to this claim. Petitioner is entitled to recover the difference between inpatient and observation for this patient. The amount of the overpayment is unknown. With regard to Adventist-FL-230 claim, this patient was a 58-year-old male complaining of shortness of breath with a history of atrial fibrillation. The patient was admitted for a five-day inpatient admission. Respondent was paid for a four-day inpatient stay because that length of stay was approved by KePro. Petitioner disputes that an inpatient stay was required. The weight of persuasive evidence supports an inpatient stay of three days. The patient had stabilized, testing had been completed, and there was no significant medical basis for an inpatient stay beyond that point. The amount of the overpayment is unknown as the audit sought reimbursement at an observation rate. Although not entitled to the four days of inpatient as billed for this patient, Respondent has established it was entitled to a three- day inpatient compensation based upon the medical necessity established for this patient. Respondent, and other providers may adjust Medicaid billings after-the-fact to conform to medical necessity for any claim filed. In this case, Respondent did not review its claims once KePro approval had been secured. That is to say, if the KePro approval was documented, Respondent did not question the claim for medical necessity once treatment was given. Billings were adjusted to conform to KePro approval, but were not questioned or re-visited as to whether the appropriate level of acuity was documented. Petitioner asserts that Respondent failed to submit the complete medical records for Adventist-FL-98 claim until after the audit was issued. Respondent’s response that it provided all medical records timely to the auditor, BAH, is accepted. It is unlikely the records of one claim would have been omitted from the hundreds of pages of records given to the auditor. BAH conducted their audit over an extensive period of time. The Interim Audit Report was issued on October 4, 2010. The overpayment at that time was alleged to be $42,848.29. That amount was also noted in the FAR dated November 16, 2010. Concurrent with the FAR, Petitioner announced its intention to impose sanctions against FHO. The July 20, 2011, audit report reduced the overpayment to $38,790.68, but again claimed Petitioner was entitled to impose sanctions. The June 12, 2012, audit report further reduced the overpayment to $38,500.78. Subsequent to the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that the overpayment should be reduced another $3,856.68 to $34,644.10. Petitioner incurred investigative and legal costs in connection with this case in the amount of $7,635.27. Respondent has not challenged the reasonableness of that amount. Petitioner seeks sanctions against Respondent in the amount of $2,000.00. Respondent submitted records to BAH for 285 claims that had to be reviewed. Of that total, only those claims addressed above remain at issue. Ninety-four percent of the claims reviewed/audited by BAH were resolved without dispute.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order adjusting the recoupment for the Medicaid overpayment as indicated in the foregoing findings of fact, imposing a sanction in the amount of $500.00, and recovering its costs in the amount of $7,635.27. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 4th day of September, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: John D. Buchanan, Jr., Esquire Henry, Buchanan, Hudson, Suber, and Carter, P.A. Post Office Drawer 14079 2508 Barrington Circle (32308) Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4079 David W. Nam, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Stuart Williams, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner received a Medicaid overpayment in the amount of $11,077.65 for claims filed between April 15, 1998, and December 31, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program. One of its duties is to recover Medicaid overpayments from physicians providing care to Medicaid recipients. Petitioner is a licensed chiropractor in the State of Florida. His Medicaid provider number is No. 3801578-00. At all times relevant here, Petitioner provided services to Medicaid patients pursuant to a valid Medicaid provider agreement. Therefore, Respondent was subject to all statutes, rules, and policy guidelines that govern Medicaid providers. Specifically, Petitioner was required to follow the guidelines set forth in the Medicaid Coverage and Limitation Handbook and the Medicaid Reimbursement Handbook. Additionally, Petitioner was required to maintain all "Medicaid-related records" that supported his Medicaid invoices and claims and to furnish those records to Respondent upon request. In 1997 and until April 1998, Petitioner's advertisement in the yellow pages of the Panama City, Florida, telephone book invited the public to make an appointment for a "free spinal exam," which specifically included two X-rays, if medically necessary. The advertisement indicated that Petitioner's office accepted patients with major medical insurance, workers' compensation insurance, and Medicare and Medicaid coverage. The advertisement did not specifically exclude Medicare and Medicaid patients, but specifically stated that the free spinal exam did not include further examination, treatment, or workers' compensation and personal injury cases. However, Petitioner's subsequent advertisements in the telephone book specifically included Medicaid as a type of case that Petitioner excluded from the offer of free services. The original and subsequent advertisements further stated as follows: Our office policy: The patient and any other person responsible for payment has the right to cancel payment, or be reimbursed for payment for any other service, exam, or treatment which is performed as a result of and within 72 hours of responding to the ad for the free service, exam or treatment. ($99.00 value) Respondent's investigator, Julie Canfield-Buddin, saw the advertisement excluding Medicaid patients as recipients of the free services. After confirming that Petitioner was a Medicaid provider, Ms. Canfield-Buddin performed an audit of Petitioner's paid Medicaid claims between April 15, 1998, and December 31, 2001. The audit revealed that Petitioner had not provided the advertised free services to Medicaid patients. In other words, Petitioner had received Medicaid reimbursements for initial office visits and X-rays of new patients who were Medicaid eligible. Petitioner received reimbursements for these services even though Medicaid policy prohibits payments to providers for services that are given to non-Medicaid patients free of charge. In April 2002, Respondent sent Petitioner a preliminary audit report. The preliminary report indicated that for the period beginning April 15, 1998, up to and including December 31, 2001, Petitioner had received $13,522.02 for certain claims that were not covered by Medicaid. The report included a request for Petitioner to send Respondent that amount for the Medicaid overpayment. After receiving the preliminary report, Petitioner's office contacted Ms. Canfield-Buddin, stating that Petitioner had some issues with the denied claims. Ms. Canfield-Buddin responded that Petitioner should state his concerns in writing and furnish Respondent with any additional medical documentation that would serve to reduce the overpayment. Petitioner sent Ms. Canfield-Buddin a letter dated April 25, 2002. Petitioner did not send Respondent any additional medical documentation with the letter to substantiate his position regarding the denied claims. Additionally, Petitioner did not provide Respondent with any written office policy that delineated any difference in the services provided to Medicaid and non-Medicaid patients. In a final audit report dated May 9, 2002, Respondent informed Petitioner that he had been overpaid $13,522.02 for Medicaid claims that, in whole or in part, were not covered by Medicaid. The final audit report included a request for Petitioner to pay that amount for the Medicaid overpayment. Ms. Canfield-Buddin subsequently received a telephone call from Petitioner's office on May 30, 2002. She received Petitioner's written request for a formal administrative hearing on June 3, 2002. After receiving Petitioner's request for a hearing, Ms. Canfield-Buddin reviewed Petitioner's account statements that related to the Medicaid overpayments. Based on that review, Ms. Canfield-Buddin reduced the amount of overpayment to $11,077.65. The revised overpayment reversed denied charges for X-rays of Medicaid patients in excess of the two X-rays that should have been provided free of charge pursuant to the offer for free services. For example, Petitioner was reimbursed for services provided to B.A. on August 10, 2001. These charges included an initial office visit under the Current Procedures Terminology (CPT) code 99203, two X-rays under the CPT code 7240, two X-rays under the CPT code 72072, and two or three X-rays under the CPT code 72100. The final audit denied reimbursement for all charges except the two or three X-rays under CPT code 72100. The revised overpayment reversed the denied charges for two X-rays under the CPT code 72070. The end result was that Respondent denied Petitioner reimbursement only for the initial office visit and two X-rays that ordinarily would have been provided free to non-Medicaid patients. Medicaid allows reimbursement for services equal to the lesser of the Medicaid fee or the provider's usual and customary charge. Petitioner's advertisement offered free services to the public at large with certain exceptions. Petitioner cannot exclude Medicaid patients from that offer by also excluding patients with personal injury or workers' compensation claims. All patients who are not Medicaid eligible are non-Medicaid patients regardless of their payment source. Just because Petitioner excludes free services to non-Medicaid patients with personal injury and workers' compensation claims, does not mean that he can deny those free services to Medicaid patients when his usual and customary practice is to provide the services free to non-Medicaid patients. Some of the denied charges at issue here allegedly involve spinal manipulations that Petitioner claims he performed on Medicaid patients during their initial office visits. Medicaid reimbursement policy requires a spinal manipulation performed during an initial office visit under a 99203 CPT code for a new patient visit to be included as part of the examination conducted during that visit. Medicaid does not allow Petitioner to be separately reimbursed for a spinal manipulation performed on the same day of service as an initial office visit. Petitioner did not include more than two X-rays or any spinal manipulations in his offer of free services for any patient. When a patient has an initial office visit in response to Petitioner's offer of free services, Petitioner first takes the patient's history, performs an examination, and reviews the first two free X-rays. Depending on the results of the evaluation, Petitioner may or may not advise the patient that additional X-rays and/or a spinal manipulation are medically necessary. Petitioner then allows the patient to arrange for payment of those services with his office staff. If the patient is non-Medicaid eligible and is able to pay for services, Petitioner proceeds to take the additional X-rays and/or to perform the spinal manipulation immediately or during a subsequent visit with payment due as arranged. If a non-Medicaid patient requires subsequent examinations during the course of treatment, Petitioner bills the patient or his or her insurance carrier for those services. If the patient is Medicaid eligible, Petitioner may either proceed with taking the X-rays and/or performing the spinal examination immediately, knowing that he will not be separately reimbursed for the spinal manipulation, or make an appointment for the Medicaid patient to return on another day so that he can be reimbursed for the spinal manipulation. In any event, Medicaid regulations do not allow reimbursement for further examinations within a three-year period. During the hearing, Petitioner testified that some of the denied charges for initial office visits under the CPT code 99203 included spinal manipulations that he never intended to be free and that he did not provide spinal manipulations as a free service to non-Medicaid patients. Petitioner's testimony in this regard is not credited for two reasons. First, he did not produce any medical documentation to support his testimony as to any Medicaid patient receiving a spinal manipulation during an initial office visit. Second, he did not identify any such patient during his testimony. Respondent performs Medicaid audits after a provider renders services. Therefore, it is essential for providers like Petitioner, who contest denied claims, to be able to substantiate their billing with appropriate documentation. Such documentation must be created at the time of service, maintained pursuant to statutory and rule requirements, and furnished to Respondent upon request. Petitioner never responded to Ms. Canfield-Buddin's request for medical documentation to substantiate Petitioner's challenge to the denied claims. Additionally, Petitioner testified that the services he performed for some Medicaid patients were not equivalent to the free services he performed for non-Medicaid patients because they often involved a higher level of service, including additional services, tests, or examinations. According to Petitioner, some of the Medicaid patients required more extensive screening and counseling that consumed more of Petitioner's time. Despite this testimony, Petitioner admitted that the histories he took of Medicaid patients and non-Medicaid patients were basically the same. Petitioner testified that the difference in the level of service provided to all patients varied based upon the individual patients and did not depend on whether they were or were not Medicaid patients. He had no written or unwritten guidelines or policies that limited the scope of screening or level of service in an initial office visit for either type of patient. Petitioner's testimony that the level of services provided to Medicaid patients differed from the level of services offered to non-Medicaid patients is not persuasive. Once again, Petitioner failed to provide the required medical documentation to support his testimony or to identify in his testimony Medicaid patients who required a higher level of service. Moreover, Petitioner knew, when he made his offer of free services, that he would not be able to claim reimbursement for services provided to Medicaid patients that were not separately reimbursable even if Petitioner was entitled to exclude Medicaid patients from the offer. This includes cases where a Medicaid patient may have required a high level of service in terms of the time expended during the screening or a spinal manipulation during the initial office visit. Petitioner provides free services to members of his family. The provision of free services to family does not establish that Petitioner had a usual and customary practice of providing free services. At times, Petitioner treats police officers and indigent persons free of charge. However, Petitioner does not publicly advertise that he treats these patients free of charge because he does not want to be overrun with people taking advantage of the offer. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner routinely treats police officers covered by private health insurance and indigent patients covered by Medicaid free of charge. Therefore, it cannot be said that Petitioner's usual and customary practice is to furnish services to these patients free of charge. A Medicaid provider is allowed to use the CPT code 99203 for a new patient visit once per recipient every three years. Petitioner's offer of free services for non-Medicaid patients allows them one free office visit and two free X-rays regardless of the passage of time. According to Petitioner, this means that Respondent's interpretation of Medicare regulations would entitle a Medicaid patient to the free services every three years whereas a non-Medicaid patient would not be so entitled, showing yet another difference in the services provided to Medicaid and non-Medicaid patients under the offer of free services. However, Petitioner's testimony in this regard is not persuasive because it is not based on medical documentation or testimony showing that Petitioner ever treated a Medicaid patient as a new patient more than once.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order determining that Petitioner owes $11,077.65 for Medicaid reimbursement overpayments. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony L. Conticello, Esquire Grant P. Dearborn, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Hal Cowen ChiroNetwork Health Care Centers 127 West 23rd Panama City, Florida 32405 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
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.
Findings Of Fact Friendly Village of Brevard, Inc. d/b/a Washington Square (herein, Washington Square) is an intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded (ICF/MR), located at 2055 North U.S. 1, in Titusville, Florida. Friendly Village of Orange, Inc., d/b/a Lake View Court (herein, Lake View Court), is also an ICF/MR located at 920 W. Kennedy Boulevard, in Eatonville, Florida. Howell Branch Court is the same type of facility, located at 3664 Howell Branch Road, Winter Park, Florida. All three facilities are operated by Developmental Services, Inc. All are certified ICF/MR's participating in the Florida Medicaid Program. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) is the state agency responsible for overseeing the ICF/MR Medicaid Program. Howell Branch entered the Florida Medicaid Program in July 1982; Washington Square entered the program on January 19, 1983; and Lake View Court entered the program on February 13, 1983. Prior to beginning operations, medicaid providers were requested to submit a budgeted cost report, a projection of what the provider anticipated spending during the coming year for services to its residents. HRS received those reports and established a per diem rate based on the costs and number of patients and arrived at a per patient, per day rate. Each month as services were provided, the ICF/MR billed the state Medicaid program for the number of patient days times the per diem. During the period in question, cost settlement would occur at the conclusion of the budgeted period. The provider would file his cost report detailing what was actually spent in Medicaid-allowable costs to provide the services, HRS would compare that amount with the amount budgeted and would settle with the provider. Prior to the July 1, 1984 ICF/MR Medicaid Reimbursement Plan, if a provider were under reimbursed (incurred allowable costs in excess of reimbursement) the provider would not receive additional reimbursement in the settlement. However, if the provider received reimbursement in excess of its allowed costs, the excess had to be paid back to HRS. This is called "one-way" cost settlement. Representatives of HRS and Florida's ICF/MR industry began negotiations on a new state reimbursement plan in 1982 and 1983. The participants in the negotiations sought to remove certain cost limitations and to insure that individual facilities would receive fair reimbursement of their Medicaid- allowable costs. The negotiations resulted in the Title XIX ICF/MR Reimbursement Plan dated July 1, 1984 (the 1984 Plan). The 1984 Plan was adopted as a rule by incorporation, in Rule 10C- 7.49(4)(a)2. Florida Administrative Code. The 1984 Plan contains a two-way cost settlement method to replace the one-way settlement method described above. This means that under the 1984 Plan, providers could receive additional reimbursement during settlement if their actual allowable costs exceeded reimbursement under the per diem rate. Washington Square and Lake View Court filed budgeted cost reports for the fiscal year ending February 19, 1984. HRS performed audits of these reports in 1985. The audits were issued in April and May 1988. The audits did not apply the two-way cost settlement method described in the 1984 Plan. Petitioners claim that a proper interpretation of the 1984 Plan is that two-way cost settlement is retroactive to January 1983 for new providers entering the program after January 1, 1983. That claim is based on the following language in the 1984 Plan and subsequent 1985 Plan: For a new provider entering the program subsequent to January 1, 1983, HRS will establish the cost basis for calculation of prospective rates using the first acceptable historical cost report covering at least a 12 month period submitted by the provider. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2, the 1984 Plan, pp 29-30. For a new provider entering the program subsequent to January 1, 1983, HRS will establish the cost basis for calculation of prospective rates using the first acceptable historical cost report covering at least a 12-month period submitted by the provider. Overpayment as a result of the difference between the approved budgeted interim rate and actual costs of the budgeted item shall be refunded to HRS. Underpayment as a result of the difference between the budgeted interim rate and actual allowable costs shall be refunded to the provider. The basis for calculating prospective rates will be the first year settled cost report. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, the 1985 Plan, p. 31.) Neither the above, nor any other language in the plans indicate that the 1984 Plan would become effective for any providers prior to July 1, 1984. HRS intended that the plan be prospectively applied. Francis "Skip" Martin was employed in HRS' Medicaid Cost Reimbursement Planning and Analysis Unit and was involved in negotiating and drafting the 1984 plan for the agency. He remembers no discussions of retroactive application of the plan. Nor could Petitioners' witnesses expressly recall that the negotiations included retroactive application of the "two- way" settlement method. Instead, they were aware that the department was working with them to establish a more acceptable reimbursement plan and they assumed that retroactivity was part of the plan. (transcript pp 95-98, 126.) Skip Martin explained that the January 1, 1983 date was arrived at by working backwards from July 1, 1984, the date of the plan. The intent was to establish a cutoff point for providers entering the program as to whether they would be considered under prospective rates or be given an interim rate and still be considered a new provider when the plan was implemented. The January 1, 1983, cutoff allowed for a year's worth of reporting history plus sufficient time for the provider to compile his cost report and submit it to the department, and time for the department to have received the cost report and have it included in the calculations that would be used on July 1, 1984. ICF/MR's entering the program after January 1, 1983, would not have had sufficient cost history for rate setting, and as "new providers" would come under a separate rate setting provisions in the plan. Carlton Dyke Snipes has worked in HRS' Medicaid Cost Reimbursement Analysis Section since 1983, and in November 1985, he became the section Administrator. He explained that the language cited above from page 31 of the 1985 Plan was a clarification of the intent that the two-way cost settlement implemented on July 1, 1984, apply to new providers, as well as existing providers. The method had not been expressly addressed in the July 1, 1984 plan in that section relating to new providers. As an alternative to retroactive application of the two-way cost settlement provision in the July 1, 1984 Plan, Petitioners contend that they should be allowed a waiver of class ceilings as provided in the plan in effect in 1983. This issue was raised in this proceeding for the first time at the final hearing. The 1983 ICF/MR Medicaid Reimbursement Plan includes this provision regarding waivers: The class ceiling under paragraph c above may be exceeded provided; the period of the limits shall not exceed six (6) months. The HCFA Regional Office will be notified in writing at least 10 days in advance in all situations to which this exception is to be applied and will be advised of the rationale for the decision, the financial impact, including the proposed rate and the number of facilities and patients involved. (Petitioners' Exhibit #7, p. 15) In one case discussed at hearing, HRS granted an exemption under this provision. The facility was an ICF/MR cluster facility, Sunrise Cape Coral. The application by the facility was cleared in advance by the federal agency, Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA). The 1983 Plan is no longer in effect and was superceded by the July 1, 1984 Plan. Petitioners did not apply for a waiver when the 1983 Plan was in effect. Instead, they claim that they did not know such an opportunity existed until discovery for this proceeding uncovered the Sunrise case. The issue with regard to Petitioner's Howell Branch facility differs from the audit issues affecting Washington Square and Lake View Court addressed above. HRS' audit of Howell Branch in 1988 includes an overpayment to the facility of approximately $115,000.00. Petitioners claim that Howell Branch should not have to reimburse those funds because during a portion of the eighteen-month cost reporting period Howell Branch was underpaid for an amount which should more than offset the overpayment. According to the provisions of the reimbursement plan which was in effect during the relevant period, July 1982 (when Howell Branch opened) through December 1983, HRS cost settled based on the lesser of: class ceilings in effect during the period, actual costs, or the budgeted interim rate. Class ceilings are established by HRS for various levels of care required by ICF/MR residents. These ceilings are based on cost reports received by HRS as of each June 30 and go into effect on October 1st of each year. Howell Branch, therefore, experienced three class ceilings during its July 1982 through December 1982 reporting period. HRS applied those three cost ceiling periods to Howell Branch, rather than monthly periods, as contended by Petitioners. As described by Carlton Dyke Snipes, MRS took the average cost determined by an audit report and every rate than had been in effect during that cost reporting period and, for every period that rate was in effect, applied the lesser of the average audited cost or the budgeted rate that was paid or the ceiling that was in effect and reprocessed the claims that had been made. This resulted in the $115,000.00 overpayment. If MRS had used average costs and average rates for the entire eighteen- month period, as advocated by Petitioners, the result would have been that ceilings would be exceeded during a portion of the eighteen month period.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order denying the petitions of Washington Square, Lake View Court and Howell Branch. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-2939 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Included in Preliminary Statement. 3 through 6. Adopted in Paragraph 1. 7. Adopted in Paragraph 2. 8 through 10. Adopted in Paragraph 3. 11 and 12. Adopted in Paragraph 5. 13 and 14. Adopted in Paragraph 6. Adopted in Paragraph 7. Rejected as unnecessary. 17 and 18. Adopted in Paragraphs 8 and 9, except for the implication that two- way reimbursement applied retroactively to January 1, 1983. Adopted in part in Paragraph 9, but the retroactive application of the methodology is rejected as inconsistent with the evidence. Adopted in Paragraph 11. Adopted in part in Paragraph 10, the statement of entitlement to two-way settlement is rejected as inconsistent with the evidence. Adopted in Paragraph 15. Rejected as argument. Adopted in part in Paragraph 16, otherwise rejected as argument. Rejected as inconsistent with the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. HAS' method of cost settlement was not inappropriate. Adopted in substances in Paragraph 19. Rejected as unnecessary 29 and 30. Rejected as argument and unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in Paragraphs 2 and 3 Adopted in Paragraph 8. 4 and 5. Adopted in Paragraphs 4 and 5. Adopted in Paragraph 6. Adopted in Paragraph 10. Adopted in Paragraphs 10 and 11. Adopted in Paragraph 17. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Bittman, and Karen L. Goldsmith P.O. Box 1980 Orlando, Florida 32802 Carl Bruce Morstadt and Kenneth Muszynski 1323 Winewood Boulevard, Bldg. One Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner be reimbursed for fiscal year 1979 and 1980 in accordance with the foregoing adjustments. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of December, 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 17th day of December, 1982.
