The Issue The issues are whether proposed and existing Florida Administrative Code rules, both numbered 59G-6.030, are valid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners are 120 hospitals--some not-for-profit, some for-profit, and some governmental--that are licensed under chapter 395, Florida Statutes, provide both inpatient and outpatient services, and participate in the Medicaid program. AHCA is the state agency authorized to make payments for services rendered to Medicaid patients. Before 2013, all Medicaid outpatient services were provided and paid fee-for-service. Under the fee-for-service model, hospitals submit claims to AHCA, and AHCA reimburses the hospitals based on the established rate. For many years, AHCA has set prospective Medicaid fee- for-service reimbursement rates for outpatient hospital services, either semi-annually or annually, based on the most recent complete and accurate cost reports submitted by each hospital; has re-published the Florida Title XIX Hospital Outpatient Reimbursement Plan (Outpatient Plan) that explained how the rates were determined; and has adopted the current Outpatient Plan by reference in rule 59G-6.030. In 2005, the Florida Legislature’s General Appropriations Act (GAA) stated that the funds appropriated for Medicaid outpatient hospital services reflected a cost savings of $16,796,807 “as a result of modifying the reimbursement methodology for outpatient hospital rates.” It instructed AHCA to “implement a recurring methodology in the Title XIX Outpatient Hospital Reimbursement Plan that may include, but is not limited to, the inflation factor, variable cost target, county rate ceiling or county ceiling target rate to achieve the cost savings.” AHCA responded by amending the Outpatient Plan to provide: “Effective July 1, 2005, a recurring rate reduction shall be established until an aggregate total estimated savings of $16,796,807 is achieved each year. This reduction is the Medicaid Trend Adjustment.” The amended Outpatient Plan was then adopted by reference in rule 59G-6.030, effective July 1, 2005. AHCA collaborated with the hospitals to determine how to accomplish the legislatively mandated reduction in a manner that would be fair to all the hospitals. It was decided to take the hospitals’ unaudited cost reports from the most recent complete fiscal year and the number of Medicaid occasions of service from the monthly report of AHCA’s Medicaid fiscal agent that corresponded to the hospitals’ fiscal years, and use an Excel spreadsheet program with a function called Goal Seek to calculate proportionate rate adjustments for each hospital to achieve the legislatively mandated aggregate savings. The resulting rate adjustments were incorporated in the hospital reimbursement rates, effective July 1, 2005. In 2006, there was no further Medicaid Trend Adjustment (MTA) reduction. However, in accordance with the instructions in the 2005 GAA, the 2005 MTA reduction of $16,796,807 was treated as a recurring reduction and was applied again in the 2006 Outpatient Plan, which again stated: “Effective July 1, 2005, a recurring rate reduction shall be established until an aggregate total estimated savings of $16,796,807 is achieved each year. This reduction is the Medicaid Trend Adjustment.” The 2006 Outpatient Plan also stated: “This recurring reduction, called the Medicaid Trend Adjustment, shall be applied proportionally to all rates on an annual basis.” It also came to be known as the first cut or cut 1. It again was applied by taking the hospitals’ most current unaudited cost reports and the corresponding occasions of service from the appropriate monthly report of the fiscal agent, and using the Excel spreadsheets and the Goal Seek function to calculate rate adjustments for each hospital. The cut 1 rate adjustments were incorporated in the hospital reimbursement rates, effective July 1, 2006. In 2007, the GAA stated that the funds appropriated for Medicaid outpatient hospital services were reduced by $17,211,796 “as a result of modifying the reimbursement for outpatient hospital rates, effective July 1, 2008.” This has been referred to as the second cut or cut 2. It instructed AHCA to “implement a recurring methodology in the Title XIX Outpatient Hospital Reimbursement Plan to achieve this reduction.” The 2008 Outpatient Plan again applied the first cut as a recurring reduction and stated that it was to be “applied proportionally to all rates on an annual basis.” It then made the second cut, which was to be “applied to achieve a recurring annual reduction of $17,211,796.” These cuts were again applied by taking the hospitals’ most current unaudited cost reports and the corresponding occasions of service from the appropriate monthly report of the fiscal agent, and using the Excel spreadsheets and the Goal Seek function to calculate rate adjustments for each hospital. The resulting rate adjustments were incorporated in the hospital reimbursement rates, effective July 1, 2008. This process was repeated in subsequent years. The third cut (cut 3) was in 2008; it was a $36,403,451 reduction. The fourth cut (cut 4) was in 2009, during a special session; it was a $19,384,437 reduction; however, per the GAA that made the fourth cut, it was not applied to the rates of certain children’s specialty hospitals, which were excluded from the reduction. In addition, using language similar to what AHCA had been using in the Outpatient Plans, the 2009 GAA stated: “The agency shall reduce individual hospital rates proportionately until the required savings are achieved.” The Legislature enacted cut 5 and cut 6 in 2009 and 2010. However, the GAAs stated that AHCA should not take these cuts if the unit costs before the cuts were equal to or less than the unit costs used in establishing the budget. AHCA determined that cuts 5 and 6 should not be taken. However, cuts 1 through 4 continued to be applied as recurring reductions, and rates were adjusted for cuts 1 through 4 in 2009 and 2010 in the same manner as before. In 2011, the GAA enacted cut 7; it was for $99,045,233 and was added to the previous cuts for all but certain children’s specialty and rural hospitals, which were excluded from the additional reduction. In setting the individual hospitals’ reimbursement rates, AHCA first applied cut 7 in the same manner as cuts 1 through 4. The result was a 16.5 percent rate adjustment for cut 7, which was much higher than for previous cuts. Some of the hospitals pointed this out to AHCA and to the Legislature and its staff. There was lots of discussion, and it was determined that the rate adjustment from cut 7 would be more like what the Legislature was expecting (about 12 percent), if budgeted occasions of service were used, instead of the number from the fiscal agent’s monthly report that corresponded to the most recent cost reports. AHCA agreed to change to budgeted fee-for- service occasions of service for cut 7, with the concurrence of the hospitals and the Legislature and its staff. The year 2011 was also the year the Legislature instituted what became known as the “unit cost cap.” In that year, the Legislature amended section 409.908, Florida Statutes, to provide: “The agency shall establish rates at a level that ensures no increase in statewide expenditures resulting from a change in unit costs effective July 1, 2011. Reimbursement rates shall be as provided in the General Appropriations Act.” § 409.908(23)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011). This part of the statute has not changed. The GAA that year elaborated: In establishing rates through the normal process, prior to including this reduction [cut 7], if the unit cost is equal to or less than the unit cost used in establishing the budget, then no additional reduction in rates is necessary. In establishing rates through the normal process, if the unit cost is greater than the unit cost used in establishing the budget, then rates shall be reduced by an amount required to achieve this reduction, but shall not be reduced below the unit cost used in establishing the budget. “Unit cost” was not defined by statute or GAA. To calculate what it was in 2011, AHCA divided the total dollar amount of Medicaid payments made to hospitals by AHCA by the number of Medicaid occasions of service for all hospitals. The result was $141.51. Since 2011, AHCA has applied the unit cost cap with reference to the 2011 unit cost of $141.51. Since then, AHCA has compared the 2011 unit cost to the current cost, calculated by dividing the total dollar amount of Medicaid payments made to all hospitals by AHCA by the number of Medicaid occasions of service for all hospitals, except in children’s and rural hospitals, to determine whether the unit cost cap would require a further rate reduction, after applying the MTA cuts. Using this comparison, the unit cost cap never has been exceeded, and no further rate adjustments ever have been required. It is not clear why AHCA excluded Medicaid occasions of service for children’s and rural hospitals from the unit cost calculations made after 2011. It could have been because those hospitals were excluded from cut 7 and cut 8. Cut 8 was enacted in 2012; it was for $49,078,485 and was added to the previous cuts for all but certain children’s specialty and rural hospitals, which were excluded from the additional reduction. In 2012, the Legislature specified in the GAA that budgeted occasions of service should be used in calculating the MTA reduction for inpatient hospitals. AHCA always treated inpatient and outpatient MTAs the same, and it viewed the specific legislative direction for the inpatient MTA as guidance and indicative of legislative intent that it should continue to use budgeted occasions of service for the outpatient cut 7 and should also use them for the outpatient cut 8. Again, the hospitals did not object since the result was a higher reimbursement rate. In 2014, the Florida Medicaid program began to transition Medicaid recipients from a fee-for-service model to a managed care model. Under the managed care model, AHCA pays a managed care organization (MCO) a capitation rate per patient. The MCOs negotiate contracts with hospitals to provide outpatient care at an agreed reimbursement rate per occasion of service. Since August 2014, the majority of Medicaid recipients has been receiving services through MCOs, rather than through fee-for-service. Currently, about 75 to 80 percent of Medicaid outpatient hospital occasions of service are provided through managed care In recognition of the shift to MCOs, the Legislature began to divide the Medicaid outpatient hospital reimbursement appropriation in the GAA between what AHCA reimburses directly to hospitals under the fee-for-service model and what it pays MCOs to provide those services under the MCO delivery system. This allocation of the budgets between fee-for-service and managed care necessarily accomplished a corresponding division of the recurring MTA reductions between the two delivery systems. The Legislature did not enact any statutes or GAAs requiring AHCA to change how it applies MTA reductions to determine fee-for-service outpatient reimbursement rate adjustments, or make any other changes in response to the transition to MCOs. There were no additional MTA reductions in 2015. The 2015 Outpatient Plan, which is incorporated in existing rule 59G- 6.030, applied the previous cuts as recurring reductions. The evidence was confusing as to whether cuts 7 and 8 were applied using the occasions of service in the fiscal agent’s monthly report corresponding to the hospitals’ most current unaudited cost reports, or using budgeted occasions of service. If the former, the numbers did not yet reflect much of the shift to the managed care model because of a time lag in producing cost reports, and the evidence suggested that the numbers were approximately the same as the budgeted occasions of service used previously. Whichever numbers were used, the resulting rate adjustments were incorporated in the hospitals’ reimbursement rates, effective July 1, 2015. Leading up to the 2016 legislative session, there was a legislative proposal to determine prospective Medicaid outpatient reimbursement rates using a completely new method called Enhanced Ambulatory Patient Groups (EAPGs). EAPGs would eliminate the need to depend on hospital cost reports and complicated calculations to determine the effects of MTA reductions on prospective hospital outpatient reimbursement rates, effective July 1, following the end of the legislative session each year. Hospitals, including some if not all of the Petitioners, asked the Legislature not to proceed with the proposed EAPG legislation until they had an opportunity to study it and provide input, and EAPGs were not enacted in 2016. However, section 409.905(6)(b) was amended, effective July 1, 2017, to require the switch to EAPGs. See note to § 409.905, Fla. Stat.; and ch. 2016-65, § 9, Laws of Fla. (2016). When it became apparent that EAPGs would not be in use for prospective reimbursement rates for fiscal year 2016/2017, AHCA basically repeated the 2015/2016 process, but adjusted the occasions of service used for calculating the hospitals’ rate reductions for cuts 7 and 8 by adding 14,000 occasions of service. At the end of July, AHCA published new rates effective July 1, 2016. When the new rates were published, they were challenged by some of the Petitioners under section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Citing section 409.908(1)(f)1., AHCA took the position that there was no jurisdiction and dismissed the petitions. That decision is on appeal to the First District Court of Appeal. The Petitioners also challenged the methodology used to calculate the new prospective reimbursement rates as a rule that was not adopted as required, and challenged the validity of existing rule 59G-6.030, which incorporated the 2015 Outpatient Plan by reference. These challenges became DOAH cases 16-6398RX through 16-6414RX. In response to DOAH cases 16-6398RX through 16-6414RX, AHCA adopted the 2016 Outpatient Plan by reference in proposed rule 59G-6.030. The 2016 Outpatient Plan provides more detail than the 2015 version. AHCA’s position is that the additional detail was provided to clarify the 2015 version. However, it changed the occasions of service used for calculating the hospitals’ rate reductions for cuts 7 and 8, as indicated in Finding 22, as well as some other substantive changes. The 2015 Outpatient Plan addressed the unit cost cap by stating: “Effective July 1, 2011, AHCA shall establish rates at a level that ensures no increase in statewide expenditures resulting from a change in unit costs.” The 2016 Outpatient Plan elaborates and specifies the calculation AHCA has been using, as stated in Finding 14. The 2015 Outpatient Plan provided that an individual hospital’s prospective reimbursement rate may be adjusted under certain circumstances, such as when AHCA makes an error in the calculation of the hospital’s unaudited rate. It also stated: “Any rate adjustment or denial of a rate adjustment by AHCA may be appealed by the provider in accordance with Rule 28-106, F.A.C., and section 120.57(1), F.S.” The 2016 Outpatient Plan deleted the appeal rights language from the existing rule. The effect of the existing and proposed rules on the Petitioners through their effect on managed care contract rates is debatable. Those rates do not have to be the same as the fee- for-service outpatient reimbursement rates, although they are influenced by the fee-for-service rates, and it is not uncommon for them to be stated as a percentage of the fee-for-service rates. By law, managed care contract rates cannot exceed 120 percent of the fee-for-service rates unless the MCO gets permission from AHCA, as provided in section 409.975(6). Currently, rates paid by MCOs for Medicaid hospital outpatient services average about 105 percent of the fee-for-service reimbursement rates. AHCA has indicated that it would not expect or like to see the contract rates much higher than that. It is not clear whether that still is AHCA’s position. If higher rates were negotiated, the impact of fee-for-services rate adjustments on managed care rates could be reduced or even eliminated. The effect of the existing and proposed rules on the Petitioners through their effect on how fee-for-service reimbursement rates are calculated is not disputed. With the transition to managed care, the effect is greater and clearly substantial. The recurring MTA reductions enacted by the Legislature through 2014, which total $224,015,229 (after taking into account $10,656,238 that was reinstated, and $4,068,064 that was added in consideration of trauma centers), are being spread over fewer fee-for-service occasions of service, especially for cuts 7 and 8, which significantly lowers the fee-for-service outpatient reimbursement rates calculated under the proposed rule. The Petitioners’ objections to the validity of the proposed and existing rules can be summarized as follows: a lack of legislative authority for recurring (i.e., cumulative) MTA reductions; a failure to adopt a fixed methodology to calculate individual hospital outpatient reimbursement rate adjustments resulting from MTA reductions; specifically, a failure to derive the number of fee-for-service occasions of service used in calculating individual hospital outpatient reimbursement rate adjustments in the same manner every year; conversely, a failure to increase the occasions of service used to calculate individual hospital outpatient reimbursement rate adjustments resulting from cuts 1 through 4; a failure of the unit cost cap in the existing rule to specify how it is applied; a failure of the unit cost cap in the proposed rule to compare the 2011 unit cost to the current cost, calculated by dividing the total dollar amount of Medicaid payments made to all hospitals by AHCA by the number of Medicaid occasions of service for all hospitals, including in children’s and rural hospitals; and proposed rule’s deletion of the language in the existing rule stating that a rate adjustment or denial can be appealed in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106 and section 120.57.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly licensed nursing home facility participating in the Medicaid Program administered and funded by Respondent. As a Medicaid Program participant, Petitioner is required annually to file a cost report with Respondent. From this cost report, Respondent establishes a per diem rate for the provider reimbursement effective the first day of the month following the month in which the cost report is received. Respondent provides each participating facility with forms to be used in submitting the annual cost report. These forms are sent to the participants by mail and are accompanied by instructions. Petitioner's cost report for the fiscal year ending October 31, 1980, was prepared by an independent accounting firm which, on November 26, 1980, mailed the report by Express mail to the following address: Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Reimbursement Supervisor, Medicaid Desk Review, Post Office Box 2050, Jacksonville, Florida 32203. Express mail guarantees next-day delivery. On November 27, 1980, a legal holiday under Section 683.01, Florida Statutes, petitioner's cost report was placed in Respondent's post office box in Jacksonville, Florida. Because of the holiday on November 27, 1980, Respondent's offices were closed. Respondent's offices were also closed on November 29, 1980, which is also a state holiday as observed by all state branches and agencies pursuant to Section 110.117, Florida Statutes. November 29 and 30, 1980, were Saturday and Sunday, respectively, on which days Respondent's offices were also closed. Petitioner's annual cost report was picked up from the post office by employees of Respondent on December 1, 1980, and delivered on that day to Respondent's Medicaid Review Desk. Because the cost report was received on December 1, 1980, Respondent assigned January 1, 1981, as the effective date of Petitioner's new rates, rather than the December 1, 1980, date which Petitioner contends is the correct effective date of its new rates because of its report having been placed in Respondent's post office box prior to December 1, 1980.
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.
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 In an attachment to the joint prehearing stipulation filed on February 18, 1996, the parties describe their resolution of all issues in these consolidated cases with the exception of this issue: Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration, through audit adjustments, properly removed working capital interest from the patient care cost centers and reallocated those costs to the operating cost centers of the individual providers.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are individual nursing homes participating in the Florida Medicaid program. They are separate providers in the program but are all owned by Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc. (FCC). Respondent, State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) is the agency responsible for administration and implementation of the Medicaid program in Florida. Title XIX of the Social Security Act (Title XIX) is the matching entitlement program, now known as Medicaid, which provides medical assistance for eligible low-income persons. Within broad federal guidelines, states are given the authority to establish eligibility standards, define the scope of services, establish reimbursement rates and generally administer their own program. One requirement of Title XIX is that a state plan for medical assistance must provide for payment of nursing facility services through rates that "are reasonable and adequate to meet the costs which must be incurred by efficiently and economically operated facilities..." (42 USC 1396(a)). Florida's reimbursement methodology has been approved by the Health Care Financing Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Florida's Medicaid reimbursement methodology requires that a provider file an annual cost report which summarizes all costs by cost centers for a given reporting period. The three Medicaid cost centers are: operating costs, patient care costs and property costs, which are defined, respectively, in the Florida Title XIX Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan: Medicaid Nursing Home Operating Costs: [Those costs not directly related to patient care or property costs], such as administrative, plant operation, laundry and housekeeping costs. Return on equity or use allowance costs are not included in operating costs. Medicaid Nursing Home Patient Care Costs: Those costs [directly] attributed to nursing services, dietary costs, and other costs [directly] related to patient care, such as activity costs, social services, and all medically-ordered therapies. Medicaid Nursing Home Property Costs: Those costs related to the ownership or leasing of a nursing home. Such costs may include property taxes, insurance, interest and depreciation, or rent. [Petitioners' exhibit no. 5, page 85, emphasis added] The historical costs reported by the provider are used to compute a separate per-patient day cost for each of the three cost centers. The per diem rates are then added to create a comprehensive per diem rate which is used to prospectively compensate the provider. For example, a provider's costs for 1992, reported in its 1992 cost report, are used to set the 1993 per diem rate. Among the regulatory objectives of the reimbursement plan is cost containment. To further this objective, the plan provides for cost ceilings and targets in each of the cost centers. The ceilings and targets are derived from data collected from all providers in Florida's Medicaid program. The ceiling rates are the maximum amount any provider can be reimbursed, based on its geographical location and size. Provider reimbursement is also limited by facility-specific target rates based on historical data and rates for the individual facility. Year to year increases in the per diems for the three cost centers are permitted to reflect the inflation rate above an established base rate. In compliance with the reporting requirements of the reimbursement plan, FCC's in-house controller, Charles Wysocki, prepared Petitioners' 1992 cost reports. They were then reviewed and signed by a Florida CPA, Joseph Mitchell. In the cost reports, on Schedule C, Mr. Wysocki with the concurrence of Mr. Mitchell, reclassified working capital interest from the property cost center to the patient care and operating cost centers based on the ratio of the total salaries in each to the total salaries for the provider facility. This salary-based allocation method was selected because salaries account for the single largest expenditure in a nursing home, generally 65 - 70 percent, and as high as 86 percent of the total costs for some FCC providers. As part of AHCA's routine review, the agency engaged a nationally- recognized accounting firm, DeLoitte and Touche, to audit the Medicaid cost reports submitted by FCC. The purpose of the review and audits is to assure that only allowable costs are included, that the costs have been properly classified and that the data used to calculate future reimbursement is correct in all material respects. The treatment of working capital interest was one of several issues identified in the audit of FCC's 1992 cost report, but it is the only issue remaining now for resolution. At the time of the audit DeLoitte and Touche was under the impression that the working capital loans were "related party" loans which are treated differently for reimbursement purposes than loans that are "arms-length" between non-related parties. The working capital interest cost was disallowed altogether. After review by the agency an audit report was issued with citations to the authorities supporting the adjustment in the audit. Later in the audit review process the agency conceded that the problem was not "related party" loans and that the working capital interest was a reimbursable cost. However, the agency disputed the allocation of the interest and adjusted Petitioners' cost reports to allocate the interest to the operating cost center. There are three authorities for treatment of Florida Medicaid nursing home costs. The parties concur that the first and primary authority is the Florida Title XIX Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan (Plan). If an issue is not addressed in the Plan, then the next resort is to the Provider Reimbursement manual (HIM-15). Finally, if the issue remains unresolved, providers and the Agency rely on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The Plan does not specifically address allocation of working capital interest, although it does provide some guidance in the definitions described in paragraph 4, above, and in this language: B. Setting prospective reimbursement per diems and ceilings. The department shall: * * * 4. Determine allowable Medicaid property costs, patient care costs, and return on equity or use allowance. Patient care costs include those costs directly attributable to nursing services, dietary costs, activity costs, social services costs, and all medically- ordered therapies. All other costs, exclusive of property cost and return on equity or use allowance costs, are considered operating costs. . . . (Petitioners' exhibit no. 5, page 45) The guidance found in HIM-15 is much more specific. For example, Section 2806.2 provides: Costs Excluded from Capital-Related Costs. This section sets forth some of the costs that are excluded from capital-related costs. To the extent that these costs are allowable they may be included in determining each provider's operating costs. Exclusions from capital-related costs include: * * * c. interest expense incurred to borrow working capital [for working expenses]; * * * [emphasis added] HIM-15, Section 2338, cited in the agency's audit report, provides: C. Interest expense incurred on funds borrowed for operating expenses must be allocated with administrative and general expenses. . . . Definitions found in Section 2102 of HIM-15 establish that reasonable costs take into account both direct and indirect costs of providers of services and that costs related to patient care include administrative costs. Costs that are neither directly nor indirectly related to patient care are not allowable in computing reimbursable costs. (Petitioners' exhibit number 2, Sections 2102.1, 2102.2 and 2102.3). The loans which generated the interest costs at issue here were obtained by the provider facilities to meet operating shortfalls. When a new facility opens there are almost all the expenses of a fully-staffed nursing home, but until the patient beds are filled, there is insufficient revenue to cover the expenses. FCC's methodology of allocating working capital interest based on salaries resulted in allocating those interest costs to both the patient care cost center and operating cost center, with most going to the patient care cost center. For example, 86 percent of salaries on the cost report for Palm Garden of Ocala for the year ending 12/31/92 were in the patient care cost center, so 86 percent of the working capital interest was allocated to patient care rather than the operating cost center. There is a substantial incentive for providers to shift costs from one center to another to avoid the ceilings. If the provider's reimbursement for operating cost is capped, but its patient care cost is not yet at the ceiling, then shifting costs from operating to patient care increases the total reimbursement to the provider. From the record it is impossible to determine exactly how the loan funds were expended by each provider. The monies were deposited into the general operating accounts of the providers and were used to cover operating shortfalls. In 1989, 1990 and 1991, the three years preceding the year at issue, the agency permitted FCC to allocate working capital interest in the same manner that FCC allocated that cost in its 1992 cost reports. However, the three preceding years' treatment was the outcome of a settlement agreement between the parties wherein each gave up some issues. Except in the context of settlement, the agency has steadfastly maintained its position that working capital interest must be allocated in the operating cost center. Prior cases with other providers have involved adjustments to move the working capital interest costs from the property cost center rather than from the patient care cost center.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing it is hereby: RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter its Final Order adopting the parties' settlement agreement and approving the agency's audit adjustments related to allocation of working capital interest. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of April, 1996, 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 26th day of April, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASES NOS. 94-6893 - 94-6906 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as unnecessary. 3.-4. Adopted in part in paragraph 11, otherwise rejected as irrelevant or immaterial. 5.-7. Adopted in part in paragraph 9, otherwise rejected as irrelevant or immaterial. 8. Rejected as irrelevant or immaterial. 9.-10. Adopted in substance in paragraph 18. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and argument. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Moreover, it is immaterial since HIM-15 and the Plan are applied, not general principles in this case. Adopted in paragraph 13. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 7. 20.-23. Adopted in part in paragraph 14, otherwise rejected as immaterial. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in paragraph 17, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 26.-31. Rejected as immaterial. 32. Adopted in part in paragraph 16, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 33.-34. Rejected as unnecessary or immaterial. The interest addressed in paragraphs A and B is distinguished from working capital interest. Rejected as an interpretation not supported by the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as immaterial. Addressed in conclusion of law, paragraph 29. 38.-39. Rejected as argument and contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as argument or unnecessary. Rejected as argument. 42.-45. Rejected as immaterial. It is unnecessary to apply GAAP here. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 22. 48.-51. Rejected as argument that is unsupported by the weight of evidence. 52. Adopted in summary in paragraph 20. 53.-54. Rejected as immaterial. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraphs 1 and 2. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 10. 5.-6. Adopted in substance in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 13. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 14 and 15. Adopted in paragraph 16. Addressed in conclusion of law, paragraph 29. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in part in paragraph 6, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in paragraph 4. Rejected as unnecessary. 15.-18. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in substance in paragraph 6. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire RUDEN, BARNETT, MCCLOSKY, SMITH SHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold M. Knowles, Esquire KNOWLES & RANDOLPH 528 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jerome Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Ft. Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, Medical Services (the Department), correctly determined the amount of reimbursement Petitioner, Zenith Insurance Company (Zenith), owes to Lawnwood Regional Medical Center (Lawnwood) for medical services, pursuant to section 440.13(7), Florida Statutes (2018).1/ More specifically, the issues raised in this case are: whether Zenith properly adjusted or disallowed payment by paying what it believed were “reasonable” charges for the Workers’ Compensation medical services provided; whether the Department’s consideration of a “Stop-Loss” percentage-based methodology, as opposed to a per diem rate, may serve as a basis for reimbursement; and what, if any, is the additional amount Zenith owes to Lawnwood for reimbursement in this case.
Findings Of Fact Parties and Participants The Department is the state agency responsible for administration of the Florida’s Workers’ Compensation process set forth in chapter 440. As such, it has exclusive jurisdiction to decide any matters concerning reimbursement for medical services under this process. See § 440.13, Fla. Stat. Zenith is a carrier as defined by section 440.13(1)(c). Lawnwood, a non-party, is a health care facility as defined by section 440.13(1)(g). Lawnwood is part of a network known as East Florida Division, Inc. (East Florida), a division of HCA Inc. Parallon, a non-party, manages the billing, revenue cycle management, and reimbursement dispute process for certain hospitals, including Lawnwood. (Jt. Stip. Facts, ¶¶ 33 and 34). Parallon filed the Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute in this case on behalf of Lawnwood. Coventry Health Care Workers Compensation, Inc., and/or Coventry Life and Health Insurance Company on behalf of First Health Group Corp. (Coventry), serves as a “middleman” between insurance carriers and health care providers. As explained by Carol Brodie, Coventry offers carriers, such as Zenith, access to special rates it has negotiated with health care facilities and providers. Essentially, Zenith is a third-party beneficiary of the rates negotiated between East Florida and Coventry. Medical Services at Issue Lawnwood provided health services to a workers’ compensation patient (patient) from January 21 through 25, 2016. The patient was to be treated for a routine outpatient surgical procedure to release an extensor tendon of his index finger. According to the unrefuted testimony of Linda Joy (a Zenith employee), the surgeon inadvertently cut the patient’s digital nerve, artery, and vein. This resulted in more extensive treatment than originally contemplated. The patient was ultimately admitted to the hospital for inpatient care, and released four days later. Payment Dispute Lawnwood issued a bill to Zenith for $163,697.30 (Lawnwood bill) for the services and treatment it provided to patient. Zenith regularly audits bills it receives from health care providers and makes adjustments if necessary. These adjustments are provided to the health care provider along with the payment in the form of an Explanation of Bill Review (EOBR). The EOBR goes through each itemized line in a bill and explains to the provider what was reduced and why. In this case, Zenith sent the Lawnwood bill to Ms. Joy for review. She reviewed the patient’s relevant medical records, as well as billing documentation, and a coding summary sheet (containing codes for procedures, medications, and other services utilized by the health care and insurance industry) from Lawnwood. Ms. Joy opined the Lawnwood bill was very high for the services provided. Both of the Department’s witnesses also felt the amount billed by Lawnwood was unexpected. Andrew Sabolic (an assistant director at the Department) was surprised at Lawnwood’s bill, stating: “it was an amount that I didn’t anticipate a hospital would charge for those types of services.” Similarly, Lynne Metz (a Department employee) testified: “The charges were high compared to what I would expect.” The Department has not made any determination or review of whether the bills or charges submitted by the hospital are reasonable for the services provided. (Jt. Stip. Fact, ¶ 28). Ms. Joy and other Zenith staff compared the charges and the information on the coding summary sheet with payments of other similar providers through a medical revenue and billing database program, known as “OPTUM 360 Revenue Cycle Program” (OPTUM360). In making the comparison, Zenith also utilized databases and benchmarks that are accepted in the industry, including Medicare, the MediSpan Drug Database, Health Care Blue Book, Health Engine, other state’s workers’ compensation reimbursement formulas, usual and customary charges, and other hospitals’ charges in the same zip code as Lawnwood. Based on the OPTUM360 results and its own analysis, Zenith calculated the total reimbursement amount acceptable to other health care providers under Medicare for the same treatment and services would be $11,173.81. As a result, Zenith issued an EOBR that adjusted the Lawnwood bill and indicated, “THIS BILL HAS BEEN PRICED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF YOUR CONTRACT WITH COVENTRY NATIONAL.” Along with the EOBR, Zenith provided benchmark data to Lawnwood to support its repricing, editing or adjustment of the bills at issue. (Jt. Stip. Facts, ¶¶ 36 and 37). In the EOBR, Zenith used four explanation codes: “47,” “81,” “92,” and “93,” as authorized by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.740(13)(a) and (b), to explain why payment was disallowed or adjusted. Code “47” (Payment disallowed: insufficient documentation: invoice or certification not submitted for implant) was used for the disallowance on a line item for an implant. Id. The parties agree that was appropriate. Code “81” (Payment adjusted: billing errors: payment modified pursuant to charge audit) was used for the line items other than the disallowed implant charge, based on Zenith’s review of the entire bill, line by line, and resulting adjustment. Id. Code “92” (Paid: no modification to information provided on the medical bill: payment made pursuant to workers’ compensation reimbursement manual for hospitals) was used because it is generally on all hospital bills. Id. Code “93” (Paid: no modification to information provided on the medical bill: payment made pursuant to written contractual arrangement) was used because Zenith had a contract with Coventry, and Coventry had an agreement with East Florida and Lawnwood. The Department has not adopted a rule establishing an EOBR code (or similar descriptive explanation) to be used by a carrier when the carrier identifies a bill or charge from a hospital that the carrier deems to be so excessively high so as to be an unreasonable basis for reimbursement under the Florida Worker’s Compensation Law. (Jt. Stip. Fact, ¶ 8). In other words, there is no code in rule 69L-7.740 for disputing a line item as being “unreasonable” or “too high.” Based on the repriced and adjusted bill, Zenith reimbursed Lawnwood $31,844.70 for the medical services provided. (Jt. Stip. Fact, ¶ 40). This amount was approximately three times the OPTUM360 amount of $11,173.81. When asked how Zenith made the decision to give three times the OPTUM360 amount, Ms. Brodie explained: We didn’t take the [OPTUM360] Medicare payment or even 120 or 140 percent of Medicare, which we thought was more than fair. . . . So because Florida -- I don't want to say they're problematic, but Florida bills, we're seeing such an increase in the amount of billed charges and we're seeing a lot of disputes when we don't pay to the penny of what the expected amount is, that we were trying to go above and beyond and try to make our payment more palatable, I guess, to the provider. So we wanted to be more than generous, so we came up with three times Medicare. Catherine Trotter (a Parallon employee) Parallon filed a request for reconsideration of the EOBR with Zenith after Lawnwood had reviewed it and determined $31,844.70 was insufficient. On April 18, 2016, Parallon, on behalf of Lawnwood, filed a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement dispute with the Department challenging the EOBR and demanding additional payment. Based on Ms. Joy’s testimony, Zenith did not contest the medical necessity of the services provided by Lawnwood, nor was there evidence Zenith claimed overutilization (the appropriateness of the level and quality of health care provided to the patient). Rather, Zenith claimed, and still claims in these proceedings, it did not pay the billed amount because the individual charges were unreasonable. Contract Provisions Zenith and Parallon, on behalf of Lawnwood, agree that a reimbursement contract applies to this dispute. (Jt. Stip. Fact, ¶ 35). The Department also based the Third Determination on the contract provisions. The parties disagree, however, as to what contract provisions apply and how they should be applied. At the hearing, the parties also disputed whether the Department was provided with the applicable contractual provisions during the petition process. The undersigned need not determine who sent what to whom, because this is a de novo proceeding; and what matters is the evidence admitted at the hearing. See 120.57(1)(k), Fla. Stat.; Haines v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 983 So. 2d 602, 606 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). No contract directly between Zenith and Lawnwood was presented at the hearing. The following documents, however, establish the agreement between Coventry and Lawnwood: (1) Amendment to Model Facility Agreement executed January 20, 2015 (MFA Amendment); Appendix A, “Payment Rate” (Appendix A); and Attachment 1, “Participating Facility List (Attachment 1); and (4) Amendment to Model Facility Agreement between Lawnwood and Coventry (also known as First Health), effective October 1, 2006 (Lawnwood Amendment). Parallon’s legal manager testified the MFA Amendment, Appendix A, Attachment 1, and the Lawnwood Amendment were the only contract provisions relevant to the reimbursement determination. These documents set the rates for Coventry (and its network clients such as Zenith), but do not provide definitions or terms that may have been included in the original “Model Facility Agreement.” Nonetheless, the Lawnwood Amendment defines the “Workers’ Compensation Contract Rate” as follows: “the amount payable under the terms of this Contract shall be the lesser of the Contract rate or a 5% discount from the amount payable under hospital guidelines established under any state law or regulations pertaining to health care services rendered to occupationally ill/injured employees.” Therefore, to make a determination of how much is owed, findings must be made as to what is the “Contact rate,” and what is the amount payable under “any state law or regulations” governing workplace injuries (State rate). Relevant to determining the “Contract rate,” Paragraph 3 of the MFA Amendment provides the following under “Rates”: The current rate reflected on Appendix A to the Agreement shall be increased by 3% for inpatient dates of admission and/or outpatient dates of service occurring on and after October 1, 2014. Appendix A contains a table depicting inpatient rates for Lawnwood as “35% Discount from Hospital’s Total Billed Charges.” (emphasis added). Because the services were provided after October 2014, the 35 percent discount reduced by the three percent discount results in Lawnwood’s expected contractual reimbursement rate to be 68 percent of the “Hospital’s Total Billed Charges,” from any of Coventry’s clients, including Zenith. Thus, the applicable Contract rate is 68 percent of the total bill submitted by Lawnwood. Zenith disputes the meaning of “Hospital’s Total Billed Charges” and argues for application of a “reasonableness” standard to this term. In support of this assertion, Zenith offers the following documents which relate to the agreement between Zenith and Coventry: (1) the Workers’ Compensation Network Services Agreement effective November 1, 2008, (Network Agreement); (2) Supplement A to the Network Agreement, titled “Network Access” (Supplement A); and (3) the Sixth Amendment to the Network Agreement executed November 24, 2015 (6th Amendment). The Network Agreement, Supplement A, and 6th Amendment are heavily redacted. Regardless, it is clear these documents classify Zenith as a “client,” who pays Coventry for access to a discounted rate for medical services with a “Contract Provider.” The Contract Provider and Coventry have a separate “provider agreement” setting this discounted rate. Although, the terms “contract rates,” “fee,” and “provider fee schedule,” are all defined in the Network Agreement Coventry has with Zenith, the definitions or explanation of these terms are redacted. Thus, there is no evidence these terms apply to the Lawnwood bill or the rate established between Coventry and Lawnwood. Similarly, Supplement A defines “Bill” but is also redacted. Regardless, based on the inclusion of these sections in the Network Agreement and attachments, Zenith and Coventry knew how to define special terms. If they intended to give a special meaning to the term “Hospital’s Total Billed Charges,” they could have done so. Section 2.2 of the 6th Amendment states, “[Zenith] agrees that the Contract Rate shall be applied to bills received from [Lawnwood] and further agrees that no other rates . . . shall be applied to such bills.” (emphasis added). Again, without any evidence to the contrary, “bills received” applies to the Lawnwood bill. Although Zenith argues the remaining language in section 2.2 allows it to “modify, edit or otherwise dispute any bill,” this modification must be done pursuant to the contract and workers’ compensation laws and regulations. As stated before, the EOBR regulations do not contemplate adjustments to be based on the reasonableness or fairness of prices or charges. More importantly, there is no basis in the contract provisions or state law and regulations allowing Zenith to reimburse Lawnwood in the amount of three times the OPTUM360 amount. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the undersigned also cannot infer this as a basis for modification of the reimbursement amount. Zenith also cites to section 2.6 of Supplement A to justify its repricing based on the OPTUM360 results and other industry-used benchmark comparison data. That section, titled “Benchmarking Database,” states, “In the event [Zenith] . . . performs a bill review or repricing function on [Lawnwood’s] bills, Zenith shall . . . update at least twice annually and utilize a nationally accepted charge-benchmarking database to determine the proper percentile of charges in the applicable zip code as approved by Coventry and Client.” Granted this section contemplates that benchmark databases can be used by Zenith in repricing bills, but it speaks to the proper percentile of charges, not the reasonableness of the underlying prices or charges. There was no evidence Coventry approved a “proper percentile of charges” as required. The undersigned finds there is no language in the redacted versions of the Network Agreement, Supplement A, or 6th Amendment that changes Zenith’s requirement (as Coventry’s client) to pay the lesser of (1) 68 percent of the “Hospital’s Total Billed Charges” or (2) 5 percent less than the rate provided pursuant to applicable state laws and regulations. Finally, Zenith argues that the definition provided in a Coventry contract with an undisclosed health care provider, titled “Workers’ Compensation Product Addendum,” should be used to determine the meaning of the term “Hospital’s Total Billed Charges.” See Zenith’s PRO, p. 22-23 (“By implication, these are all in the same network and use the same contractual provisions.”). This document (Zenith’s Exhibit 39) provides definitions, if applicable, that could have been helpful in addressing Zenith’s arguments. For example, this document ties the amount owed by a Coventry client to an “allowable amount” and “eligible bill charges.” There is no evidence, however, that Zenith’s Exhibit 39 was executed by Lawnwood (or East Florida), or that the provisions in this document were part of any agreement between Coventry and Lawnwood, or Coventry and Zenith. As such, the undersigned finds it is not applicable to these proceedings. Applying the Contract rate--68 percent of the “Hospital’s Total Billed Charges” indicated in the Network Agreement and attachments--to the Lawnwood bill would require Zenith to provide a total amount of $110,859.24, or an additional amount of $79,014.54. The Workers’ Compensation System The analysis does not stop there. The next step is to determine how much would be owed at “a 5% discount from the amount payable under hospital guidelines established under any state law or regulation pertaining to health care services rendered to occupationally ill/injured employees.” The undersigned finds this provision refers to the laws and regulations under Florida’s workers’ compensation system set forth in chapter 440 and the Department’s rules. In making the determination decisions in this case, the Department used the Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2014 Edition, and incorporated by reference in rule 69L-7.501 (HRM). The HRM generally provides for reimbursement based on either a per diem fee or the amount agreed upon by contract between the carrier and medical services provider. Under the section titled “Reported Charges,” the HRM provides: “charges for hospital inpatient services shall be reimbursed according to the Per Diem Fee Schedule provided in this chapter or according to a mutually agreed upon contract reimbursement agreement between the hospital and the insurer.” HRM at 15. “Per Diem” is defined as “a reimbursement allowance based on a fixed rate per calendar day which is inclusive of all services rather than on a charge by charge basis.” HRM at 35. In certain circumstances when provider bills are in excess of $59,891.34, a per diem rate is not used. Rather, the HRM provides that the reimbursement amount is calculated using a percentage methodology of 75 percent of the billed charges. This “Stop-Loss Reimbursement” is defined as “a reimbursement methodology based on billed charges once reaching a specified amount that is used in place of, and not in addition to, per diem reimbursement for an inpatient admission to an acute care hospital or a trauma center.” HRM at 17 and 35 (emphasis added). As explained below, the Stop-Loss methodology conflicts with section 440.13(12)(a), which specifically provides for establishment of a maximum reimbursement amount (MRA) based on a per diem rate for inpatient hospital care.5/ Applying the State rate--the per diem rate set forth in the HRM--Lawnwood would receive $3,850.33 per day, except for the day of discharge, which equals $11,550.99. HRM at 16. Applying the five percent discount, as set forth in the Lawnwood Amendment, to the $11,550.99 amount, the total amount payable by Zenith to Lawnwood equals $10,973.44. Because the State rate is less than the amount calculated using the Contract rate, the undersigned finds Zenith owed Lawnwood a total reimbursement amount of $10,973.44, which is less than the $31,844.70 already paid by Zenith.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order dismissing the petition of Lawnwood Regional Medical Center for resolution of a reimbursement dispute. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 8th day of May, 2019.
The Issue Whether the agency's audit adjustment of an interim rate should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a licensed nursing home located in Chipley, Washington County, Florida. The Petitioner is located in a rural county in Florida's panhandle with high numbers of Medicaid- eligible patients. The Petitioner participates in the Florida Medicaid Program and has agreed to provide skilled or intermediate nursing care services for Medicaid patients. The Respondent is the state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program. The parties have entered into an agreement that governs the provision of Medicaid services and the reimbursement to the provider (Petitioner). Such plan authorizes reimbursement based upon rates agreed between the parties and limited by rules and regulations applicable to the Medicaid Program. In this regard, Medicaid reimbursements are made in accordance with the Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (the Plan). The Plan was adopted and incorporated by reference in Rule Chapter 59G, Florida Administrative Code. To set a reimbursement rate, cost reports are reviewed by AHCA to determine the actual Medicaid allowable costs incurred by the provider. The allowable costs are used to set a prospective rate for the provider. Payments to the provider in subsequent periods are then based upon the rate adjusted for inflation. There are limits on costs and reimbursements. If a provider incurs an expense above the allowed level, it will not be reimbursed. In this regard the approved rate for the provider may not compensate the provider for expenses that were more than anticipated. Medicaid is not intended to pay for luxury care. The Medicaid Program covers rates for providers that are efficiently operated. The providers are not compensated for luxury services, excessive charges, or operating costs that exceed what a prudent, efficiently operated facility would incur. Once the reimbursement rate is set it continues until the next rate-setting period. If circumstances change such that the rate unfairly impacts the provider's ability to provide care, an interim rate adjustment may be requested. An increased interim rate could assist the provider until the regular rate is re-calculated. Nursing homes are subject to inspections or surveys that are performed by AHCA to assure compliance with all applicable standards of operation. The standards are to assure that patients receive a quality of care at or above minimum levels. Pertinent to this case was a survey that found Petitioner deficient due to inadequate staffing levels. Inadequate staffing directly impacts the quality of care a facility is able to provide. Given its rural location and the wages it was offering, the Petitioner could not offer competitive opportunities in order to recruit and retain qualified staff. For entry level employees the Petitioner found itself competing against even McDonald's restaurant for employees. As a result, when a survey found the facility deficient, the Petitioner sought financial relief through a request for an interim rate increase. The provider faced a financial loss if the deficiency were corrected without a corresponding increase in its rate as it would not be able to cover the additional costs within its reimbursement rate. To correct the deficiencies Petitioner sought six additional Certified Nursing Assistants and wage enhancements. As a result, it sought an interim rate increase of $3.56 per day in patient care and $.12 per day in operating cost. The interim reimbursement rate was approved by AHCA in 1996. The reimbursements to this provider then continued based upon the new rate. It then became the facility's objective to follow the plan of correction to assure that the deficiency was, in fact, alleviated. In November of 1997, new rates were established for the Petitioner which became the settled rate. Based upon the cost reports filed with AHCA, the Petitioner's rate was settled with increases of $3.91 per day in patient care and $1.62 in the operating category. The instant case resulted from an audit conducted at the facility. The audit was to verify that the expenses reported were correct and allowable. An audit should also confirm that the statistical information reported by the provider was correct. The auditors used $3.56 instead of $3.91 as the starting point for the cost report figures. The Petitioner had relied on the higher number as the cost- settled figure for the audit. More important, the Petitioner relied on the same accounting methodology it had relied on for the interim rate request. The auditors, an independent accounting firm, did not accept the prior methodology. Subsequent to the audit, the Respondent issued a letter to the Petitioner claiming it was owed $364,621.12 for Medicaid over-payments. The Respondent maintains it is entitled to recoup the over-payments as part of the future reimbursements to the provider. The Petitioner argues that such action will adversely impact the provider's ability to provide the quality of care expected by AHCA. All of the costs reported by this Petitioner are allowable under the Medicaid guidelines. The crux of the issue in the case results from the settled interim rate not being accepted and carried forward by the independent auditors. Because some amounts exceeded the "budgeted" estimates, the auditors disallowed the additional expenses. The amounts, all within the category of wage or salary enhancements, were not deemed proper because they exceeded or altered the granted 50- cent-an-hour pay raise within the original request. Although allowable, the expenditures fell outside the parameters of the budget that support the interim rate increase. Bonuses and wage enhancements paid by the Petitioner during the audited period were not one-time expenses but are on-going programs to encourage and support the retention of qualified employees. This was within the parameter of curing the deficiency that the interim rate sought to address. None of the expenses fell outside of operation and patient care costs. It is anticipated that the reduction in Petitioner's rate will result in reduced staffing. Otherwise, the facility will not be a financially feasible operation. The reimbursement rate for this provider is not higher than other rates for the other providers serving the geographical region served by the Petitioner. When a provider goes through the cost settlement process, AHCA is authorized to and may seek additional information to clarify any form submitted by a Medicaid provider. In this case, the rate was cost- settled without additional information being sought by AHCA. The allowable expenses incurred by the Petitioner support the reimbursement rate paid to this provider.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Administration enter a Final Order reinstating the provider's Medicaid rate to include the interim rate as previously settled and accepted by the Respondent. AHCA should affirm the interim rate established and committed by the cost report allowing $3.91 for patient care and $1.62 for operating costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _____________________________ J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Powell and Mack 803 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Steven A. Grigas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Ruben J. King-Shaw, Jr., Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue is what is the correct amount of workers’ compensation reimbursement to Largo Medical Center for emergency services rendered to patient M.C. for a work-related injury?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Guarantee, is a carrier within the meaning of Subsections 440.02(4) and (38), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602(1)(w). Respondent, the Department, has exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to the reimbursement of health care providers by carriers for medical services rendered to injured workers. § 440.13(7) and (11)(c), Fla. Stat. Intervenor, Largo, is a health care provider within the meaning of Subsection 440.13(1)(h), Florida Statutes. Largo is an acute care hospital located in Largo, Pinellas County, Florida. On July 25, 2009, Largo provided emergency services to patient M.C., a 32-year-old female, who was injured at her place of work. M.C. was examined by Largo’s emergency department physician. She received two Computed Tomography (“CT”) scans without contrast dye, one of the brain and one of the cervical spine. She also received a pregnancy test and an X-ray of her lumbar spine. The results of these diagnostic tests were negative. M.C. was given a cervical collar to wear, and was discharged. Largo’s total charges for M.C.’s outpatient emergency services were $7,885.05. Largo submitted its claim for reimbursement using the standard “uniform billing” form, UB-04. The UB-04 sets out each service provided to M.C., the individual charge for each service, and the total charge. The individual services on the UB-04 submitted for patient M.C. are listed as follows: urine pregnancy test; X-ray; CT scan of the cervical spine; a three-dimensional rendering of the image and its interpretation; the CT of the brain; and the emergency department visit itself. Largo’s claim was received by MCMC, an organization described as a “third-party administrator,” and was referred in turn to Qmedtrix. Qmedtrix is a medical bill-review agent located in Portland, Oregon. Qmedtrix performs bill review by referral from carriers and third-party administrators, and performed a bill review for Guarantee of the bill submitted by Largo. For its compensation, Qmedtrix is paid a percentage of the difference, if any, between the amount billed by the facility and the amount paid by the carrier. Following Qmedtrix’ review, Largo received a check from Guarantee in the amount of $5,287.97, along with an “Explanation of Medical Benefits” review (EOBR), which is required to be sent along with the bill payment. For reasons that are not clear, there are two EOBRs in evidence for this claim. One (Petitioner’s Exhibit 4) has the logo “MCMC” in the upper left hand corner and is substantially more formal. The other (Largo’s Exhibit 3) does not have any identifying logo, but the following statement appears on page two: “For questions regarding this review, please call MCMC at 1-888-350-1150.” It is not clear why MCMC would have generated two different EOBRs for the same claim, but, in any event, the allowed amounts for the six components of Largo’s charges and the total payment amount, $5,287.97, is the same on both EOBRs. The EOBR that is Largo’s Exhibit 3 sets out the six individual components of Largo’s claim, and indicates that the first five were approved for reimbursement at 75 percent of the charge billed by Largo. The sixth component is the charge for the emergency department visit itself. For that charge, Largo billed $1,365.38, of which 75 per cent would be $1,024.04. The EOBR indicates the corresponding 25 percent discount from billed charges ($341.35) under a column entitled “MRA,” and indicates further that an additional reduction of $625.81 was applied, leaving an approved payment of $398.22 for the emergency room component of the claim. The additional reduction of $625.81 is under a column entitled “Ntwk Redc,” and the narrative explanation under the total payment states, ”The network discount shown above is based on your contract with the network.” Guarantee conceded at hearing that there was no contract applicable to the claim. The EOBR also has references to “convalescent care” and “PIP days,” neither of which apply to Largo’s claim. The EOBR that is Guarantee’s Exhibit 4 has one column entitled “Qualify Code.” In completing an EOBR, insurers must select a code from a list of approximately 50 codes found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602(5)(o)2., which identifies the reason for the disallowance or adjustment. For the emergency room visit, the EOBR shows a code of 82, which is explained as follows: “Payment adjusted: Payment modified pursuant to carrier charge analysis.” Both EOBRs indicate a “procedure code” of 99283. The UB-04 submitted by Largo used code 99284. These codes are among five codes that are used by hospitals to bill emergency department visits based on “level” of intensity rendered. These codes are taken from the American Medical Association’s Current Procedural Terminology (or CPT), a coding system developed for physician billing, not for hospitals. Over the years, these CPT codes have been adopted by hospitals for billing emergency department visits. Emergency department services are billed with CPT codes 99281 through 99285. After receiving the payment and EOBR, Largo timely filed a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute, with attachments, to the Department. Largo alleged in its Petition that the correct reimbursement amount owed was $5,913.79, leaving an underpayment of $625.82. Qmedtrix, acting as Guarantee’s representative, then filed Guarantee’s Response to Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute and attachments with the Department. Attached to the Response was a letter from R.W. von Sydow dated November 5, 2009. The letter asserted that the correct payment to the hospital (Largo) should be determined on an average of usual and customary charges for all providers in a given geographic area, rather than the hospital’s usual and customary charges. As authority, Mr. von Sydow cites the case of One Beacon Insurance v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 958 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). The letter also requested that the Department “scrutinize the bill in question in order to determine, first, whether the hospital in fact charged its usual charge for the services provided and, second, whether the billed charges are in line with the customary charges of other facilities in the community.” The letter further alleges that the hospital “upcoded” the emergency room visit, billing using CPT code 99284, asserting that the proper billing code should have been 99283. The letter concludes that the amount paid, $398.22, for the emergency department visit is closer to the “usual and customary” charges that Qmedtrix asserts, on behalf of Guarantee, is applicable to the claim. On November 13, 2009, the Department issued its Determination. The Determination states in pertinent part: The Carrier Response to Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute disputes the reasonableness of the hospital’s “usual and customary charges,” maintains the petitioners’ charges should be based on the average fee of other hospitals in the same geographic area, and references a manual not incorporated by rule. There are no rules or regulations within Florida’s Workers’ Compensation program prohibiting a provider from separately billing for individual revenue codes. The carrier did not dispute that the charges listed on the Form DFS-F5- DWC-90 (UB-92) or the charges listed on the itemized statement did not conform to the hospital’s Charge Master. Nor did the carrier submit the hospital’s Charge Master in the response or assert that the carrier performed an audit of the Charge Master to verify the accuracy of the billed charges. Therefore, since no evidence was presented to dispute the accuracy of the Form DFS-F5- DWC-90 or the itemized statement as not being representative of the Charge Master, the OMS finds that the charges billed by the hospital are the hospital’s usual and customary charges. Rule 69L-7.602, F.A.C., stipulates the appropriate EOBR codes that must be utilized when explaining to the provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment. The EOBR submitted with the petition does not conform to the EOBR code requirements of Rule 69L-7.602(5)(q), F.A.C. Only through an EOBR is the carrier to communicate to the health care provider the carrier’s reasons for disallowance or adjustment of the provider’s bill. Pursuant to s. 440.13(12), F.S., a three member panel was established to determine statewide reimbursement allowances for treatment and care of injured workers. Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., incorporates, by reference, the applicable reimbursement schedule created by the panel. Section 440.13(7)(c), F.S., requires the OMS to utilize this schedule in rendering its determination for this reimbursement dispute. No established authority exists to permit alternative schedules or methodologies to be utilized for hospital reimbursement other than those adopted by Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., unless the provider and the carrier have entered into a mutually agreeable contract. Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C., incorporates, by reference, the Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2006 Edition (Hospital Manual). Since the carrier failed to indicate any of the services are not medically necessary, the OMS determined proper reimbursement applying the above referenced reimbursement guidelines. Therefore, the OMS has determined that the carrier improperly adjusted reimbursement to Largo Medical Center for services rendered to the above- referenced injured employee on July 25, 2009. Based upon the above analysis, the OMS has determined that correct reimbursement equals $5,913.79 ($7,885.05 x 75% [Hospital Manual] = $5,913.79). The determination letter also informed Guarantee of its right to an administrative hearing. Guarantee timely filed a Request for Administrative Hearing, which gave rise to this proceeding. CODING FOR M.C.’S EMERGENCY SERVICES As mentioned above, Largo reported the emergency department visit using CPT Code 99284. No one from the hospital testified, but Largo’s expert, Allan W. March, M.D., reviewed Largo’s hospital record for M.C. Dr. March is a graduate of Dartmouth College and Johns Hopkins University Medical School. He has extensive experience in, among other things, hospital physician practice and utilization review. Dr. March describes utilization as the oversight of medical care to affirm that it is appropriate, cost-effective, and medically necessary. Dr. March has worked as an emergency department physician and has personally treated upwards of 5,000 workers’ compensation patients. Dr. March testified on behalf of Largo and the Department. Dr. March described M.C. and her injuries from the hospital record as follows: This is a 32-year-old female who had just slipped at her place of work prior to arrival at the emergency department and presented in moderate distress, with moderate pain in the head, neck, and lower back. And the patient displayed tenderness in the posterior neck area as well as in the right lower back. Dr. March reviewed Largo’s hospital record for M.C. to analyze whether Largo appropriately used CPT code 99284, or whether it should have used a lower CPT code. Largo’s coding for the emergency department visit is based on the American College of Emergency Physicians’ “ED Facility Level Coding Guidelines” (ACEP Guidelines). By using the ACEP Guidelines, Largo used a nationally recognized methodology in determining the level of service to which the hospital should bill. He noted that the hospital’s charge sheet indicated that the level of services was marked at a Level 4. Dr. March compared the hospital’s charge list with the ACEP Guidelines and found them to be essentially the same, and that the Level 4 marked on the charge sheet corresponded with CPT code 99284. Dr. March found that Largo used a nationally recognized methodology in determining the level of service to which the hospital should bill. In Dr. March’s opinion, Largo correctly assigned 99284 to M.C.’s emergency department visit, and that the assignment of 99284 is substantiated by the medical record. Under the ACEP guidelines, the CPT code level assigned is always the highest level at which a minimum of one “possible intervention” is found. In this case, Dr. March determined that two CT scans were ordered by the physician and performed by the hospital, which substantiates the use of a 99284 code under the ACEP Guidelines. Dr. March further explained that the coding level of a hospital does not correspond directly to the coding level assigned by the physician. The physician’s services are coded under the CPT-4 coding book. According to Dr. March, the CPT coding manual is applicable to facility coding only if the hospital chooses to use this manual as a basis in their methodology for coding. Further, Dr. March explained that the separate billing of the emergency department visit captures separate and distinct costs incurred by hospitals that are not included in line-items for procedures. The claim submitted by Largo was sent to Qmedtrix for a bill review. Its data elements were first entered into Qmedtrix’ proprietary bill-review software known as “BillChek.” The software placed Largo’s claim on hold for manual review. The claim was then manually reviewed by Mr. von Sydow, Director of National Dispute Resolution for Qmedtrix. Although his educational background is in law, Mr. von Sydow is a certified coder certified by the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA). Mr. von Sydow determined in his bill review that Largo should have used code 99283 instead of 99284. Mr. von Sydow described what he considers to be inconsistencies between certain diagnosis codes under the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition (ICD-9) and the CPT codes used to classify the emergency department visit. He considers the ICD-9 codes on Largo’s claim (specifically 959.01 used to indicate “head injury, unspecified”) to be inconsistent with CPT code 99284. In his view, ICD-9 corresponds more closely with CPT code 99283. Moreover, Mr. von Sydow referenced a study by the American Hospital Association (AHA) and AHIMA, which suggests that hospitals should count the number and kind of interventions to approximate the CPT factors, but that a hospital should not include in this count interventions or procedures, such as CTs or X-rays, which the hospital bills separately. He further acknowledged that the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) allow hospitals to use their own methodology in applying the CPT codes. David Perlman, M.D., received his undergraduate degree from Brown University and his medical degree from the University of Oregon. He has considerable experience as an emergency room physician. For the past six years, he has worked for Qmedtrix initially doing utilization review and as its Medical Director since 2005. Dr. Perlman testified on behalf of Guarantee. Dr. Perlman is familiar with the ACEP guidelines relied upon by Dr. March and the AHA/AHIMA study relied upon by Mr. von Sydow. He is also familiar with the CPT code handbook. Dr. Perlman suggested that the use of the ACEP guidelines could result in reimbursement essentially already provided in a separate line-item. He agrees with the methodology recommended by the AMA/AHIMA study. That is, counting the number and kind of interventions or procedures to approximate the CPT book’s factors to consider in selecting the code billed for emergency department services, but not including in this count interventions or procedures, such as CTs or X-rays, which the hospital bills separately. In Dr. Perlman’s opinion, M.C.’s injuries supported assignment of CPT code 99283 rather than 99284. The fact that M.C. underwent CT scans did not alter this conclusion. According to Dr. Perlman, use of a CT scan in a patient’s emergency department treatment determines that the facility may assign a 99284 code under the ACEP guidelines. In his opinion, this does not necessarily reflect the severity of the illness or injury. Dr. Perlman acknowledged, however, that hospitals are free to use the ACEP guidelines and that many hospitals do so. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that there is no national, standardized methodology for the manner in which hospitals are to apply CPT codes 99281-99285 for facility billing. The preponderance of the evidence also establishes that, while there is a difference of opinion as to whether ACEP guidelines are the best method, it is a nationally recognized method used by many hospitals. Largo’s use of this methodology is supported by the weight of the evidence as appropriate. M.C.’s hospital record amply documents the interventions required for the assignment of CPT code 99284 under the ACEP guidelines. Dr. March’s opinion that the separate billing of the emergency department visit captures separate and distinct costs incurred by hospitals that are not included in line-items for procedures is accepted. It is concluded that the coding of M.C.’s emergency department visit as 99284 by Largo was appropriate. There is no dispute that Largo’s charges as represented on the UB-04 form conform to its internal charge master, or that the services represented were in fact provided, or that they were medically necessary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a Final Order requiring Petitioner to remit payment to Largo consistent with the Determination Letter dated November 13, 2009, and Section 440.13(7)(c), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 17th day of June, 2010.
