The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent applied the proper reimbursement principles to Petitioners' initial Medicaid rate setting, and whether elements of detrimental reliance exist so as to require Respondent to establish a particular initial rate for Petitioners' facilities.
Findings Of Fact There are nine Petitioners in this case. Each of them is a long-term health care facility (nursing home) operated under independent and separate legal entities, but, generally, under the umbrella of a single owner, Tzvi "Steve" Bogomilsky. The issues in this case are essentially the same for all nine Petitioners, but the specific monetary impact on each Petitioner may differ. For purposes of addressing the issues at final hearing, only one of the Petitioners, Madison Pointe Rehabilitation and Health Center (Madison Pointe), was discussed, but the pertinent facts are relevant to each of the other Petitioners as well. Each of the Petitioners has standing in this case. The Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by each Petitioner was timely and satisfied minimum requirements. In September 2008, Bogomilsky caused to be filed with AHCA a Change of Licensed Operator ("CHOP") application for Madison Pointe.1 The purpose of that application was to allow a new entity owned by Bogomilsky to become the authorized licensee of that facility. Part and parcel of the CHOP application was a Form 1332, PFA. The PFA sets forth projected revenues, expenses, costs and charges anticipated for the facility in its first year of operation by the new operator. The PFA also contained projected (or budgeted) balance sheets and a projected Medicaid cost report for the facility. AHCA is the state agency responsible for licensing nursing homes in this state. AHCA also is responsible for managing the federal Medicaid program within this state. Further, AHCA monitors nursing homes within the state for compliance with state and federal regulations, both operating and financial in nature. The AHCA Division of Health Quality Assurance, Bureau of Long-Term Care Services, Long-Term Care Unit ("Long-Term Care Unit") is responsible for reviewing and approving CHOP applications and issuance of an operating license to the new licensee. The AHCA Division of Health Quality Assurance, Bureau of Health Facility Regulation, Financial Analysis Unit ("Financial Analysis Unit") is responsible for reviewing the PFA contained in the CHOP application and determining an applicant's financial ability to operate a facility in accordance with the applicable statutes and rules. Neither the Long-Term Care Unit nor the Financial Analysis Unit is a part of the Florida Medicaid Program. Madison Pointe also chose to submit a Medicaid provider application to the Medicaid program fiscal agent to enroll as a Medicaid provider and to be eligible for Medicaid reimbursement. (Participation by nursing homes in the Medicaid program is voluntary.) The Medicaid provider application was reviewed by the Medicaid Program Analysis Office (MPA) which, pursuant to its normal practices, reviewed the application and set an interim per diem rate for reimbursement. Interim rate-setting is dependent upon legislative direction provided in the General Appropriations Act and also in the Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (the Plan). The Plan is created by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS (formerly known as the Health Care Financing Administration) is a federal agency within the Department of Health and Human Services. CMS is responsible for administering the Medicare and Medicaid programs, utilizing state agencies for assistance when appropriate. In its PFA filed with the Financial Analysis Unit, Madison Pointe proposed an interim Medicaid rate of $203.50 per patient day (ppd) as part of its budgeted revenues. The projected interim rate was based on Madison Pointe's expected occupancy rate, projected expenses, and allowable costs. The projected rate was higher than the previous owner's actual rate in large part based on Madison Pointe's anticipation of pending legislative action concerning Medicaid reimbursement issues. That is, Madison Pointe projected higher spending and allowable costs based on expected increases proposed in the upcoming legislative session. Legislative Changes to the Medicaid Reimbursement System During the 2007 Florida Legislative Session, the Legislature addressed the status of Medicaid reimbursement for long-term care facilities. During that session, the Legislature enacted the 2007 Appropriations Act, Chapter 2007-72, Laws of Florida. The industry proposed, and the Legislature seemed to accept, that it was necessary to rebase nursing homes in the Medicaid program. Rebasing is a method employed by the Agency periodically to calibrate the target rate system and adjust Medicaid rates (pursuant to the amount of funds allowed by the Legislature) to reflect more realistic allowable expenditures by providers. Rebasing had previously occurred in 1992 and 2002. The rebasing would result in a "step-up" in the Medicaid rate for providers. In response to a stated need for rebasing, the 2007 Legislature earmarked funds to address Medicaid reimbursement. The Legislature passed Senate Bill 2800, which included provisions for modifying the Plan as follows: To establish a target rate class ceiling floor equal to 90 percent of the cost- based class ceiling. To establish an individual provider- specific target floor equal to 75 percent of the cost-based class ceiling. To modify the inflation multiplier to equal 2.0 times inflation for the individual provider-specific target. (The inflation multiplier for the target rate class ceiling shall remain at 1.4 times inflation.) To modify the calculation of the change of ownership target to equal the previous provider's operating and indirect patient care cost per diem (excluding incentives), plus 50 percent of the difference between the previous providers' per diem (excluding incentives) and the effect class ceiling and use an inflation multiplier of 2.0 times inflation. The Plan was modified in accordance with this legislation with an effective date of July 1, 2007. Four relevant sentences from the modified Plan are relevant to this proceeding, to wit: For a new provider with no cost history resulting from a change of ownership or operator, where the previous provider participated in the Medicaid program, the interim operating and patient care per diems shall be the lesser of: the class reimbursement ceiling based on Section V of this Plan, the budgeted per diems approved by AHCA based on Section III of this Plan, or the previous providers' operating and patient care cost per diem (excluding incentives), plus 50% of the difference between the previous providers' per diem (excluding incentives) and the class ceiling. The above new provider ceilings, based on the district average per diem or the previous providers' per diem, shall apply to all new providers with a Medicaid certification effective on or after July 1, 1991. The new provider reimbursement limitation above, based on the district average per diem or the previous providers' per diem, which affects providers already in the Medicaid program, shall not apply to these same providers beginning with the rate semester in which the target reimbursement provision in Section V.B.16. of this plan does not apply. This new provider reimbursement limitation shall apply to new providers entering the Medicaid program, even if the new provider enters the program during a rate semester in which Section V.B.16 of this plan does not apply. [The above cited sentences will be referred to herein as Plan Sentence 1, Plan Sentence 2, etc.] Madison Pointe's Projected Medicaid Rate Relying on the proposed legislation, including the proposed rebasing and step-up in rate, Madison Pointe projected an interim Medicaid rate of $203.50 ppd for its initial year of operation. Madison Pointe's new projected rate assumed a rebasing by the Legislature to eliminate existing targets, thereby, allowing more reimbursable costs. Although no legislation had been passed at that time, Madison Pointe's consultants made calculations and projections as to how the rebasing would likely affect Petitioners. Those projections were the basis for the $203.50 ppd interim rate. The projected rate with limitations applied (i.e., if Madison Pointe did not anticipate rebasing or believe the Plan revisions applied) would have been $194.26. The PFA portion of Madison Pointe's CHOP application was submitted to AHCA containing the $203.50 ppd interim rate. The Financial Analysis Unit, as stated, is responsible for, inter alia, reviewing PFAs submitted as part of a CHOP application. In the present case, Ryan Fitch was the person within the Financial Analysis Unit assigned responsibility for reviewing Madison Pointe's PFA. Fitch testified that the purpose of his review was to determine whether the applicant had projected sufficient monetary resources to successfully operate the facility. This would include a contingency fund (equal to one month's anticipated expenses) available to the applicant and reasonable projections of cost and expenses versus anticipated revenues.2 Upon his initial review of the Madison Pointe PFA, Fitch determined that the projected Medicaid interim rate was considerably higher than the previous operator's actual rate. This raised a red flag and prompted Fitch to question the propriety of the proposed rate. In his omissions letter to the applicant, Fitch wrote (as the fourth bullet point of the letter), "The projected Medicaid rate appears to be high relative to the current per diem rate and the rate realized in 2006 cost reports (which includes ancillaries and is net of contractual adjustments). Please explain or revise the projections." In response to the omissions letter, Laura Wilson, a health care accountant working for Madison Pointe, sent Fitch an email on June 27, 2008. The subject line of the email says, "FW: Omissions Letter for 11 CHOW applications."3 Then the email addressed several items from the omissions letter, including a response to the fourth bullet point which says: Item #4 - Effective July 1, 2007, it is anticipated that AHCA will be rebasing Medicaid rates (the money made available through elimination of some of Medicaid's participation in covering Medicare Part A bad debts). Based on discussions with AHCA and the two Associations (FHCA & FAHSA), there is absolute confidence that this rebasing will occur. The rebasing is expected to increase the Medicaid rates at all of the facilities based on the current operator's spending levels. As there is no definitive methodology yet developed, the rebased rates in the projections have been calculated based on the historical methodologies that were used in the 2 most recent rebasings (1992 and 2002). The rates also include the reestablishment of the 50% step-up that is also anticipated to begin again. The rebasing will serve to increase reimbursement and cover costs which were previously limited by ceilings. As noted in Note 6 of the financials, if something occurs which prevents the rebasing, Management will be reducing expenditures to align them with the available reimbursement. It is clear Madison Pointe's projected Medicaid rate was based upon proposed legislative actions which would result in changes to the Plan. It is also clear that should those changes not occur, Madison Pointe was going to be able to address the shortfall by way of reduced expenditures. Each of those facts was relevant to the financial viability of Madison Pointe's proposed operations. Madison Pointe's financial condition was approved by Fitch based upon his review of the PFA and the responses to his questions. Madison Pointe became the new licensed operator of the facility. That is, the Long-Term Care Unit deemed the application to have met all requirements, including financial ability to operate, and issued a license to the applicant. Subsequently, MPA provided to Madison Pointe its interim Medicaid rate. MPA advised Madison Pointe that its rate would be $194.55 ppd, some $8.95 ppd less than Madison Pointe had projected in its PFA (but slightly more than Madison Pointe would have projected with the 50 percent limitation from Plan Sentence 1 in effect, i.e., $194.26). The PFA projected 25,135 annual Medicaid patient days, which multiplied by $8.95, would equate to a reduction in revenues of approximately $225,000 for the first year of operation.4 MPA assigned Madison Pointe's interim Medicaid rate by applying the provisions of the Plan as it existed as of the date Madison Pointe's new operating license was issued, i.e., September 1, 2007. Specifically, MPA limited Madison Pointe's per diem to 50 percent of the difference between the previous provider's per diem and the applicable ceilings, as dictated by the changes to the Plan. (See Plan Sentence 1 set forth above.) Madison Pointe's projected Medicaid rate in the PFA had not taken any such limitations into account because of Madison Pointe's interpretation of the Plan provisions. Specifically, that Plan Sentence 3 applies to Madison Pointe and, therefore, exempts Madison Pointe from the new provider limitation set forth in Plan Sentences 1 and 2. However, Madison Pointe was not "already in the Medicaid program" as of July 1, 2007, as called for in Plan Sentence 3. Rather, Madison Pointe's commencement date in the Medicaid program was September 1, 2007. Plan Sentence 1 is applicable to a "new provider with no cost history resulting from a change of ownership or operator, where the previous operator participated in the Medicaid program." Madison Pointe falls within that definition. Thus, Madison Pointe's interim operating and patient care per diems would be the lesser of: (1) The class reimbursement ceiling based on Section V of the Plan; (2) The budgeted per diems approved by AHCA based on Section III of the Plan; or (3) The previous provider's operating and patient care cost per diem (excluding incentives), plus 50 percent of the difference between the previous provider's per diem and the class ceiling. Based upon the language of Plan Sentence 1, MPA approved an interim operating and patient care per diem of $194.55 for Madison Pointe. Plan Sentence 2 is applicable to Madison Pointe, because it applies to all new providers with a Medicaid certification effective after July 1, 1991. Madison Pointe's certification was effective September 1, 2007. Plan Sentence 3 is the primary point of contention between the parties. AHCA correctly contends that Plan Sentence 3 is not applicable to Petitioner, because it addresses rebasing that occurred on July 1, 2007, i.e., prior to Madison Pointe coming into the Medicaid system. The language of Plan Sentence 3 is clear and unambiguous that it applies to "providers already in the Medicaid program." Plan Sentence 4 is applicable to Madison Pointe, which entered the system during a rate semester, in which no other provider had a new provider limitation because of the rebasing. Again, the language is unambiguous that "[t]his new provider reimbursement limitation shall apply to new providers entering the Medicaid program. . . ." Madison Pointe is a new provider entering the program. Detrimental Reliance and Estoppel Madison Pointe submitted its CHOP application to the Long-Term Care Unit of AHCA for approval. That office has the clear responsibility for reviewing and approving (or denying) CHOP applications for nursing homes. The Long-Term Care Unit requires, as part of the CHOP application, submission of the PFA which sets forth certain financial information used to determine whether the applicant has the financial resources to operate the nursing home for which it is applying. The Long-Term Care Unit has another office within AHCA, the Financial Analysis Unit, to review the PFA. The Financial Analysis Unit is found within the Bureau of Health Facility Regulation. That Bureau is responsible for certificates of need and other issues, but has no authority concerning the issuance, or not, of a nursing home license. Nor does the Financial Analysis Unit have any authority to set an interim Medicaid rate. Rather, the Financial Analysis Unit employs certain individuals who have the skills and training necessary to review financial documents and determine an applicant's financial ability to operate. A nursing home licensee must obtain Medicaid certification if it wishes to participate in the program. Madison Pointe applied for Medicaid certification, filing its application with a Medicaid intermediary which works for CMS. The issuance of a Medicaid certification is separate and distinct from the issuance of a license to operate. When Madison Pointe submitted its PFA for review, it was aware that an office other than the Long-Term Care Unit would be reviewing the PFA. Madison Pointe believed the two offices within AHCA would communicate with one another, however. But even if the offices communicated with one another, there is no evidence that the Financial Analysis Unit has authority to approve or disapprove a CHOP application. That unit's sole purpose is to review the PFA and make a finding regarding financial ability to operate. Likewise, MPA--which determines the interim Medicaid rate for a newly licensed operator--operates independently of the Long-Term Care Unit or the Financial Analysis Unit. While contained within the umbrella of AHCA, each office has separate and distinct duties and responsibilities. There is no competent evidence that an applicant for a nursing home license can rely upon its budgeted interim rate--as proposed by the applicant and approved as reasonable by MPA--as the ultimate interim rate set by the Medicaid Program Analysis Office. At no point in time did Fitch tell Madison Pointe that a rate of $203.50 ppd would be assigned. Rather, he said that the rate seemed high; Madison Pointe responded that it could "eliminate expenditures to align them with the available reimbursement." The interim rate proposed by the applicant is an estimate made upon its own determination of possible facts and anticipated operating experience. The interim rate assigned by MPA is calculated based on the applicant's projections as affected by provisions in the Plan. Furthermore, it is clear that Madison Pointe was on notice that its proposed interim rate seemed excessive. In response to that notice, Madison Pointe did not reduce the projected rate, but agreed that spending would be curtailed if a lower interim rate was assigned. There was, in short, no reliance by Madison Pointe on Fitch's approval of the PFA as a de facto approval of the proposed interim rate. MPA never made a representation to Madison Pointe as to the interim rate it would receive until after the license was approved. There was, therefore, no subsequent representation made to Madison Pointe that was contrary to a previous statement. The Financial Analysis Unit's approval of the PFA was done with a clear and unequivocal concern about the propriety of the rate as stated. The approval was finalized only after a representation by Madison Pointe that it would reduce expenditures if a lower rate was imposed. Thus, Madison Pointe did not change its position based on any representation made by AHCA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, approving the Medicaid interim per diem rates established by AHCA and dismissing each of the Amended Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 2009.
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency) properly determined that Petitioners should reimburse South Bay Hospital 60 percent of the amount charged for the outpatient surgery performed on a workers' compensation claimant; (2) whether the charges were undocumented, excessive, erroneous, incorrect, and/or duplicative; (3) whether the Agency complied with applicable rules in making its decision; (4) whether the employee who made the determination for the Agency had been delegated the authority to do so; and (5) whether the Agency has adopted guidelines and procedures for its employees to follow in making decisions in reimbursement disputes decided under Section 440.13, Florida Statutes (2003).1
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the witnesses, the evidence received at the final hearing, the parties' stipulations, the testimony and evidence from the post-hearing proceeding, and the record in this case, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner, Mednet Connect, Inc. (Mednet), is a professional review service, which does business as Medical Review and Analysis Service (MAARS). As a professional review service, it contracts with insurance carriers, employers, and health care providers, including hospitals, to conduct specialized reviews of medical bills. Mednet's activities include auditing hospital bills and reviewing procedural codes and charges on hospital bills. Petitioner, Aspen Administrators (Carrier), is a subdivision of the workers' compensation carrier and is a carrier within the meaning of Subsection 440.02(4), Florida Statutes (2003). Petitioner, Florida Gold Citrus, Inc. (Employer or Florida Gold Citrus), is the employer of the injured workers' compensation patient, R.G. South Bay Hospital is a health care provider and is owned by Hospital Corporation of America (HCA). South Bay Hospital is located in Sun City Center, Florida, which is in the Tampa Bay area. The Agency is charged with the review and resolution of disputes regarding the payment of providers by carriers for medical services rendered to individuals receiving Workers' Compensation benefits. Pursuant to Subsection 440.13(11)(c), Florida Statutes (2003), the Agency has exclusive jurisdiction over reimbursement disputes and over utilization disputes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Agency included the Division of Health Quality Assurance (Division). Within the Division was the Bureau of Managed Health Care (Bureau) and within the Bureau was the Workers' Compensation Section or Unit. The foregoing units are identified in the Agency's organizational chart and comport with the requirements of Subsection 20.04(3), Florida Statutes (2003). At all times relevant to this proceeding and at the time of the hearing, Mr. Willis was employed by the Agency as an administrator. As an Agency administrator, Mr. Willis is the unit manager for the Workers' Compensation Unit of the Agency. The Workers' Compensation Unit is specifically designated to review and determine disputes brought pursuant to Subsection 440.13(7), Florida Statutes (2003). As unit manager, Mr. Willis is required to report directly to the bureau chief. Mr. Willis is responsible for administering the provisions of Section 440.13, Florida Statutes (2003), related to provider reimbursement disputes and utilization review programs. As unit manager, Mr. Willis supervises a team of professionals in the Workers' Compensation Unit of the Bureau, including the registered nurse consultants and the registered nurse specialists, who are charged with reviewing utilization and reimbursement disputes. These registered nurse consultants or registered nurse specialists are responsible for reviewing utilization and reimbursement disputes and writing determination letters based on their reviews. There are no written internal procedures or guidelines for registered nurse consultants to perform this task. However, the registered nurse consultants are required to "utiliz[e] [the] standards and policies" in the applicable Workers' Compensation laws and rules. This case involves a workers' compensation utilization and reimbursement dispute and a review of the same, conducted pursuant to Subsection 440.13(7), Florida Statutes (2003). The dispute arose out of what the Carrier perceived to be excessive and incorrect medical bills submitted to the Employer and the Carrier by South Bay Hospital, the health care provider that treated R.G., an injured workers' compensation employee. On January 5, 2004, an employee of Florida Gold Citrus, "R.G.," sustained a work-related injury while working. Following the accident, R.G. was taken to South Bay Hospital where she was diagnosed with a fractured humerus and dislocated elbow. R.G. was also determined to have "other and unspecified injury to her elbow, forearm, and wrist." R.G. received emergency treatment at South Bay Hospital, for which HCA billed the Carrier $3,370.19. South Bay Hospital's charges for the emergency treatment on January 5, 2004, were initially at issue, and information concerning those changes will be addressed only as they relate to the later hospital charges. However, all issues surrounding the hospital charges for the January 5, 2004, services have been resolved and are no longer in dispute. As a result of her work-related injury, R.G. was scheduled for outpatient surgery at South Bay Hospital on January 23, 2004. On that date, she had a scheduled outpatient surgery at the hospital, an open reduction, internal fixation (ORIF) performed to repair the fractured arm. On or about April 26, 2004, the hospital submitted to the Employer and the Carrier a bill of $24,013.93 for this outpatient surgery. Petitioners are statutorily required to review all bills, invoices, and other claims for payment submitted by health care providers to identify over-utilization and billing errors. Upon initial receipt and review of the bills for each date of service, the Carrier noted several discrepancies and irregularities, including charges that were in excess of what it deemed to be usual, reasonable, and usual and customary; duplicate charges; charges for undocumented services; charge explosion; and charge unbundling. Therefore, the Carrier forwarded the bills to Mednet for analysis. The term "bundling" means or refers to an all- inclusive charge for a particular procedure. Under the health industry standard, all items and services needed to accomplish a procedure are included in one charge. The term "unbundling" means that a charge included in the "packaged bundling," is also separately billed. When this occurs, it is considered a duplicate charge. According to the Complete Global Service Data for Orthopedic Surgery, Volume 1, 2004, if services are "bundled," they are billed as part of the total package, and it is inappropriate to then bill separately for those services. This publication was published by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons and is included as a reference document in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.020, which adopts and incorporates by reference the Florida Workers' Compensation Health Care Provider Reimbursement Manual (Health Care Provider Reimbursement Manual). The Health Care Provider Reimbursement Manual is listed as a resource document in the Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals. Ms. Reynolds is familiar with the Complete Global Service Data, 2004 Edition, and has used it in her role as a registered nurse consultant. In the instant case, however, she did not use this as a reference document. The term "charge explosion" means a procedure by which a hospital's billing department automatically includes a certain list of medications, supplies, and equipment on a patient's hospital bill for a certain procedure, whether those items are actually used or not. In such instances, no credit is given if any of the listed supplies, medications, and/or equipment are not used. Mednet received the bill for the January 23, 2004, date of service on May 6, 2004. Upon analysis of the bill, Mednet specifically identified what it perceived to be numerous billing irregularities associated with each date of service. Mednet uses a third party computer software to assist it in analyzing hospital bills. This computer software is the industry standard and uses industry benchmarks or reference data to assist in determining the usual and customary charge for a procedure, treatment, or service. Based on its initial review of the hospital bill, Mednet concluded that the hospital bill included billing for multiple and duplicate charges for the same items and services; charges for treatment, supplies, and services that were not documented by medical records as having been delivered or used in the treatment of the patient; "charge explosion"; incorrect charges; and inflated, excessive, and unreasonable charges, when compared with those of other similar hospitals in the area for the procedure. On May 12, 2004, Mednet forwarded an Explanation of Review (Explanation of Review or EOR) to HCA in relation to the January 23, 2004, date of service. The Explanation of Review reflected an adjusted reimbursement amount of $4,316. The Explanation of Bill Review, otherwise referred to as the Explanation of Review, is defined as the "codes and written explanation of an insurer's reimbursement decision sent to the health care provider." On the Explanation of Review related to the January 23, 2004, date of service, and submitted to South Bay Hospital, Mednet adjusted or disallowed the amount billed for most, if not all, of the procedures, supplies, and equipment listed on the health care providers' itemized bill. On the Explanation of Review, next to each billed amount, Mednet listed one or more codes, which indicated the reason that amount was either disallowed or reduced. The three codes used on the Explanation of Review were 017, S01, and S04. The EOR indicated the meanings of the various codes as follows: 017 Review based on guidelines set forth per the applicable State Workers' Compensation Fee Schedule S01 The fee was reviewed to a standard or reasonableness based on comparisons to industry benchmarks of charges and reimbursement for comparable services in the providers' area S04 This item is packaged or bundled into another basic service or surgical procedure fee performed on the date of service and, therefore, additional reimbursement is disallowed. As a result of its analysis of the provider's bill, Mednet advised the Carrier to pay the amount that Mednet determined to be the usual and customary charge for this particular procedure performed on January 23, 2004, by similar hospitals in the Tampa Bay area, $4,316.00. Based on Mednet's analysis and advice, the Carrier reimbursed HCA $4,316.00 on or about May 20, 2004. Upon completion of its analysis, Mednet, acting for the Carrier, also notified HCA, of its determination that the Carrier should pay HCA only $4,316.00, and not sixty percent of the charges billed, $24,013.93. On or about May 24, 2004, HCA forwarded a request for reconsideration to Mednet in regard to the adjusted reimbursement for both the January 5, 2004, and the January 23, 2004, services. Soon after receiving the request, Mednet began the reconsideration. As part of that process, on or about June 3, 2004, Mednet requested that the hospital provide Mednet with the "medical records and other documentation" to support its charges and billing, but did not receive it until months after the Petition was filed. The medical record would have assisted the Carrier in connection with its review of the hospital's billed charges. Without the medical records or other supporting documents related to the services rendered to the claimant on January 23, 2004, Mednet had no way of verifying if the bill from South Bay Hospital and/or HCA contained billing errors, excessive charges, or duplicate charges. On or about June 1, 2004, only a few days after requesting that the Carrier reconsider the adjusted reimbursement, HCA filed a Petition with the Agency. The Petition requested that the Agency resolve the reimbursement dispute related to both the January 5 and 23, 2004, charges. When the Petition was filed with the Agency, Mednet was still in the process of completing its reconsideration of the charges related to the January 5, 2004, and January 23, 2004, dates of service. The Petition related to the January 23, 2004, date of service, stated in relevant part the following: Per a review of this claim we have found it was paid incorrectly pursuant to the Florida's Workers' Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, 2004 edition which refers to a facility/Hospital in ([R]ule 38F-7.501). P.8 Section 10: Reimbursement C. Outpatient Charges (1) All medically necessary charges related to scheduled outpatient surgeries shall be reimbursed at 60 percent of the hospital's charges. Total charges for this claim are $24,013.93. We expected 60% of the billed charges ($14,408.35)[.] We received payment of $4,316.00. This claim is underpaid $10,092.35. In addition to the foregoing, the Petition stated that the claim was billed on February 12, 2004, but the initial payment was not made until May 25, 2004. According to the Petition, this delay in payment violated Subsection 440.20(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), which requires the carrier to pay, disallow, or deny all medical, dental, pharmacy, and hospital bills submitted to the carrier no later than 45 calendar days after the carrier's receipt of the bill. Attached to the Petition that was submitted to the Agency were the following documents related to the January 23, 2004, date of service: (1) South Bay Hospital/HCA's completed UB-92, the form on which charges must be submitted; (2) South Bay Hospital's itemized bill; (3) the Explanation of Review, which had been previously submitted to the provider by Mednet, on behalf of the Carrier; and (4) the Explanation of Benefits, prepared by the Carrier and previously submitted to the provider. The UB-92 included the date and description of the services provided, the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) Codes, and the charges for the services. Also, there was a notation on the UB-92 that the itemized bill and the medical records were attached. As noted on the UB-92, the itemized bill for the January 23, 2004, date of service was attached to the Petition. However, the medical records were not attached to the UB-92 nor was it provided to the Agency prior to its resolution of the reimbursement dispute. The Petition related to the January 23, 2004, date of service, was assigned to Ms. Reynolds, a registered nurse consultant, employed by the Agency and assigned to its Bureau of Rehabilitation and Medical Services. Ms. Reynolds is a registered nurse, who has a bachelor's degree in nursing and a master's degree in surgical nursing. As a registered nurse consultant, Ms. Reynolds' official job responsibilities include reviewing and making determinations regarding disputes under Subsection 440.13(7), Florida Statutes (2003). In carrying out her job responsibilities, relative to assigned disputes, Ms. Reynolds first reviews the petition and validates that it is a workers' compensation claim. Ms. Reynolds also reviews applicable workers' compensation laws and rules, including Section 440.13, Florida Statutes (2003) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.501. As part of Ms. Reynolds' review, she refers to American Medical Association's CPT Code to make sure that the CPT Code listed on the UB-92 is correct for the procedure described. If Ms. Reynolds determines that it is necessary in a given case, she may also refer to medical textbooks. Ms. Reynolds developed a checklist that she utilizes in the review process. On the checklist, Ms. Reynolds records relevant dates and various components to ensure compliance with the required statutory and rule provisions. Pursuant to Subsection 440.13(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), within ten days after receipt of the Petition and all documents, the Carrier must submit to the Agency all documentation substantiating the Carrier's disallowance. On or about June 10, 2004, Mednet provided HCA and the Agency with a detailed response regarding the January 5, 2004, date of service. This was within ten days of the Carrier's receiving the Petition related to the January 5, 2004, charges. With regard to the Petition related to the January 23, 2004, date of service, Mednet and/or the Carrier submitted no documentation to substantiate the Carrier's disallowances to the Agency within ten days of receipt of the Petition. Petitioners do not dispute that they failed to provide documentation to substantiate the Carrier's disallowance within ten days of receiving the Petition. However, Petitioners believed that because HCA's Petition did not include the medical records referred to on the UB-92, HCA had not, in fact, filed the Petition and "all documentation." Thus, in Petitioners' view, the ten-day period had not started to run. Despite this opinion, neither Mednet nor the Carrier corresponded or otherwise communicated with the Agency to advise that they had requested and were waiting to receive the medical records from South Bay Hospital. Mednet provided HCA and the Agency with a detailed response regarding the Petition related to the January 23, 2004, date of service, on or about June 29, 2004, more than two weeks after the Agency made its determination. Mednet did not have or rely on the hospital record for this response. When the Agency received the response, it had already made its determination. Ms. Reynolds reviewed the Petition related to the January 23, 2004, date of service and validated that it was a Workers' Compensation claim. Based on that review, Ms. Reynolds believed this was a reimbursement dispute. She then reviewed the Explanation of Benefits prepared by the Carrier and the Explanation of Review prepared by Mednet, that were submitted with the Petition. Both the Explanation of Benefits and the Explanation of Review noted the Carrier's reasons for the disallowance and/or reduction of the charges. However, because the Carrier failed to submit documents to substantiate its disallowance and/or adjustment, Ms. Reynolds apparently concluded that there was no basis for the Carrier's doing so. Having failed to receive any documentation from the Carrier, Ms. Reynolds did not consider or independently investigate the validity of the disallowance and/or adjustment. Furthermore, Ms. Reynolds made no determination as to whether the charges of South Bay Hospital were reasonable. Prior to issuing the determination letter, Ms. Reynolds believed that she had all the information she needed. Therefore, she did not request additional information from the health care provider such as the medical records or use documents which were in the Agency's possession and accessible to her. Moreover, Ms. Reynolds did not refer to the CPT Code Manual because she believed that the procedures performed, as reflected on the UB-92 Form, appeared to be consistent with the diagnosis that was presented. The UB-92 for the January 23, 2004, date of service, indicated that the outpatient surgical procedure was CPT Code 24665, which indicated "repair radius fracture." At some point after the Agency issued the determination letter, Mednet expressed concern that this code appeared to be a discrepancy with the apparent diagnosis and treatment rendered on January 5, 2004, which indicated treatment related to the humerus. Given that the humerus is the only bone in the upper arm and the radius is one of two bones in the lower arm or forearm,13 Mednet's concern was reasonable and could perhaps have been definitively cleared up by reviewing the medical record of R.G. However, Mednet never raised this concern in its Explanation of Review. In making the decision relative to the Petition, Ms. Reynolds appropriately relied on Section 440.13, Florida Statutes (2003), and the Florida Workers' Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals (Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals), 2004 Edition, which is incorporated by reference into Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.501. Subsection 440.13(12), Florida Statutes (2003), provides in pertinent part: . . . All compensable charges for hospital outpatient care shall be reimbursed at 75 percent usual and customary charges. . . . It is the intent of the Legislature to increase the schedule of maximum reimbursement allowances for selected physicians effective January 1, 2004, and to pay for the increases through reductions in payments to hospitals. Revisions developed pursuant to this subsection are limited to the following: * * * 3. Outpatient reimbursement for scheduled surgeries shall be reduced from 75 percent of charges to 60 percent of charges. The Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals provides the guidelines for the maximum reimbursement allowance, including the reimbursement for outpatient services. Section 10, C. of the Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals, states: Section 10: Reimbursement. C. Outpatient Charges All compensable charges for hospital outpatient care shall be reimbursed at 75 percent of the hospital's charges with the following exceptions: 1. All medically necessary charges related to scheduled outpatient surgeries shall be reimbursed at 60 percent of the hospital's charges. The Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals defines the term "charge" as "the dollar amount billed." The Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals defines "charge master" as a comprehensive-coded list "developed by a hospital or an ambulatory surgical center representing the usual charges for specific services." Such document is required to be developed and maintained by the healthcare providers in accordance with Subsection 440.13(12)(d), which provides that "each health care provider . . . receiving workers' compensation payments shall maintain records verifying their usual charges." Ms. Reynolds interpreted the above-quoted provisions of the Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals and Subsection 440.13(12), Florida Statutes (2003), to require the carrier to reimburse the provider 60 percent of charges billed by the hospital, irrespective of whether the charges were the hospital's usual charges or were reasonable. Consistent with the foregoing interpretation, Ms. Reynolds multiplied the hospital's total charges, as reflected on its bill, by 60 percent and determined that the Employer and the Carrier must pay the hospital 60 percent of $24,013.93 or $14,408.36. Based on the payment of $4,316 that the Carrier made on May 24, 2004, Ms. Reynolds determined that the outstanding balance due was $10,092.36. Ms. Reynolds' interpretation of applicable Workers' Compensation statutory provisions and the Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals is inconsistent with the Agency's interpretation of those provisions. The Agency has interpreted the "charges" referred to in Subsection 440.13(12)(b)3., Florida Statutes (2003), and the Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals to mean the hospital's "usual charges," and not "any" charges or the "usual and customary" charges. The Agency's analysis and resolution of a disputed reimbursement requires a determination, at a minimum, of what the hospital's usual charges are for the services or procedures and whether the billed charges are reasonable. The hospital's usual charges can be verified by looking at its charge master. In this case, the Agency had the charge master for South Bay Hospital and that charge master was accessible to Ms. Reynolds. However, Ms. Reynolds did not review the charge master for South Bay Hospital to determine its "usual charges" for the services and procedures it billed for the January 23, 2004, date of service. The determination letter dated June 11, 2004, signed by Ms. Reynolds, stated that the reimbursement for the services rendered on June 23, 2004, "has not been paid correctly and finds an improper disallowance/improper adjustment of payment to provider has been made." The determination letter also refers to the statutory and rule requirement that carriers must pay, disallow, or deny bills within 45 days. The Agency's determination appears primarily based upon Ms. Reynolds' perception that the Carrier violated this requirement. However, this reason was abandoned by the Agency at hearing and through the testimony of its expert witness. Petitioners contend that the Agency's secretary is designated to make final agency decisions, and, in order for a Agency employee to issue a determination letter in a reimbursement dispute, the Agency's secretary must delegate such authority to that employee. Petitioners claim that in absence of such letter or other specific delegation, the decision made by Ms. Reynolds cannot be properly attributed to the Agency. Despite this assertion, Petitioners presented no evidence to support their position. Notwithstanding any error she made, Ms. Reynolds' review of the reimbursement dispute and issuance of the determination letter were within the scope and consistent with her assigned duties as a registered nurse consultant in the Workers' Compensation Unit. In performing those duties, Ms. Reynolds was properly acting on behalf of the Agency, and her actions with regard to the Petition appeared to be ratified by the Agency.14 Mednet's analysis determined what the services rendered at South Bay Hospital on January 23, 2004, would have cost if they had been performed in a different setting (i.e. inpatient surgery versus same day outpatient surgery). Mednet's analysis concluded that if this same surgery had been performed on an inpatient basis instead of an outpatient basis, the hospital would have been limited to a maximum reimbursement allowance of about $3,400, under the Workers' Compensation laws of most states, including those of Florida. In its analysis, Mednet considered whether the charges billed by South Bay Hospital were the "usual and customary" charges for the services rendered. The term "usual and customary charges" is a term used in the health care industry and refers to the average price for a particular service or procedure charged by similar healthcare providers in the same geographic area. The usual and customary charge for this procedure in the area where South Bay Hospital is located, the metropolitan statistical area of Tampa-St. Petersburg-Sarasota, is $4,574.08.15 In this particular case, by comparison South Bay Hospital's charge for the surgical procedure alone to those of other hospitals in the area, appears to be unreasonable and excessive. South Bay Hospital charged $12,548.00 for CPT Code 24665, alone, and $24,013.93 for the entire one-day outpatient visit. Mednet has access to data banks and reports of hospitals' costs, which come from mandatory reports which both the state and federal governments require them to file annually. Mednet performed an analysis of this data and determined that South Bay Hospital's costs for performing this procedure is approximately $3,518.01. Mednet's analysis determined that based on South Bay Hospital's own departmental cost to charge ratios, the Non Fee Schedule procedures should have been billed at $14,771.60 and that the fee schedule items that are paid per the Florida Fee Schedule total $161.00. Accordingly, the health care provider's charges should have been $14,771.60. Sixty percent of this amount would be $8,863. The data upon which Mednet based its analysis is reliable and valid. However, Mednet's analysis made no determination of South Bay Hospital's usual charge for the services performed on June 23, 2004. The Reconsideration Process In its initial response to the Agency regarding the Petition, the Carrier indicated that the health care provider had requested reconsideration of the disallowance or adjustment of certain charges. Because the request was made pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-31.001(5), the Carrier believed that the parties should have been allowed to attempt to resolve the matter prior to the Agency undertaking the dispute resolution process. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-31.001 prescribed a procedure whereby health care providers and carriers may attempt to resolve reimbursement issues prior to submitting requests for utilization or reimbursement disputes to the Agency. The rule provides that a provider may request the carrier to reconsider charges that are reduced or disallowed and that this reconsideration process must be sought by the healthcare provider prior to sending a request for resolution to the Agency. Mednet contends that the "reconsideration process" provides the carrier with an opportunity to resolve most concerns without the intervention of the Agency. By reviewing and acting on the Petition prior to completion of the reconsideration process, Petitioners assert that the Agency shortcut the system outlined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-31.001(5) and deprived the Carrier of an opportunity to reconsider its disallowance and adjustments. The June 11, 2004, determination letter indicated there was no need for the Agency to delay resolving the reimbursement dispute pending the outcome of the reconsideration process. According to the letter, the Carrier's reliance on Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-31.001 was misplaced because "the rule is currently being rescinded from the Florida Administrative Code as it is without statutory support." Contrary to Petitioners' view that the Agency should have complied with Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A- 31.001(5), for the reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law, at the time the Petition was filed, the rule had been repealed and was no longer in effect.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order which: Finds that South Bay Hospital's charge for the January 23, 2004, date of service, was $14,771.60; Finds that the Carrier, Aspen Administrators, is required to pay 60 percent of South Bay Hospital's charge, or $8,863.00; Gives the Carrier, Aspen Administrators, credit for the $4,316.00, it has already paid; and Requires the Carrier to pay the remaining balance of $4,547.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 9th day of August, 2006.
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.
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 issue in this case is whether the Petitioner should be required to pay $300 as workers' compensation reimbursement for medical services provided to a patient.
Findings Of Fact Raulerson is an acute care hospital in Okeechobee, Florida, owned by Okeechobee Hospital, Inc. Raulerson's licensed premises includes the acute care hospital building and an additional building that contains a physical therapy department and an outpatient clinic identified as "Company Care." Company Care provides occupational health and workers' compensation services to employees working for participating employers. The clinic operates as a department of the hospital and is staffed by salaried employees of the hospital. The ambulatory care services provided at the clinic are hospital services pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rules 59A- 3.065(4) and 59A-3.2085(7). The Patient suffered a compensable injury on August 4, 2011, and was treated on that date at the Raulerson emergency room. On August 8 and 15, 2011, the Patient went to the Raulerson outpatient clinic for evaluation and to have a non-surgical wound dressing changed or removed. Using a standard hospital billing form known as a UB-04, Raulerson submitted a single $400 bill to the Petitioner. The bill contained a separate $200 charge for each of the two outpatient service dates. The Florida workers' compensation program refers to the UB-04 form as a DFS-F5-DWC-90 form. Although the Petitioner attempted to assert at the hearing that the outpatient services had not been fully authorized, the stipulation filed by the parties prior to the hearing clearly stated that the services were authorized by the Petitioner and that there are no issues of medical necessity presented in this case. The Petitioner declined to pay the bill for the outpatient visits and issued an Explanation of Benefits Review (EOBR) form that provided the following coded explanation for its decision: 64-PAYMENT DISALLOWED: BILLING ERROR: SERVICE "NOT COVERED" UNDER APPLICABLE WORKERS' COMPENSATION REIMBURSEMENT MANUAL. * * * 5218-FACILITY CHARGE FOR TREATMENT ROOM OR CLINIC VISIT HAS BEEN IMPROPERLY BILLED PURSUANT TO NATIONAL UNIFORM BILLING MANUAL GUIDELINES. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED FOR FACILITY BASED PHYSICIAN ARE TO BE BILLED ON APPROPRIATE FORM. NO ADDITIONAL REIMBURSEMENT GRANTED FOR FACILITY FEE. The standard billing form used by health care professionals to file for reimbursement of medical claims is a CMS-1500 form (identified as the DFS-F5-DWC-9 form by the Florida workers' compensation program). Essentially, the Petitioner has asserted that Raulerson should have submitted bills for the outpatient services on a professional services billing form rather than on a hospital billing form. The apparent effect of submitting the charges on the hospital billing form rather than the professional services billing form was to increase the reimbursement rate paid for the services. There was no credible evidence that Raulerson's use of the hospital billing form violated any applicable requirements of the Florida workers' compensation program. The Petitioner has previously paid similar claims that were submitted on the UB-04 hospital billing form. Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.501 incorporates by reference, the Florida Workers' Compensation Manual for Hospitals (2006 Edition), which, states, in relevant part, as follows: Section X: Outpatient Reimbursement Reimbursement Amount Except as otherwise provided in this Section, hospital charges for services and supplies provided on an outpatient basis shall be reimbursed at seventy-five percent (75%) of usual and customary charges for medically necessary services and supplies, and shall be subject to verification and adjustment in accordance with Sections XI and XII of this manual. * * * Section XI: Disallowed, Denied and Disputed Charges * * * Physician Services The insurer shall not reimburse a hospital for physician services when billed by the hospital on the hospital billing form. Proper billing and reimbursement of physician services rendered in any location, including inside a hospital, shall be in accordance with the requirements of rules 69L-7.602 and 69L-7.020. Rule 69L-7.602 is the Florida Workers' Compensation Medical Services Billing, Filing and Reporting Rule. Rule 69L-7.602(4)(c) requires that hospitals submit bills using Form DFS-F5-DWC-90 (the hospital billing form). Rule 69L-7.602(4)(b)4.b. states as follows: Outpatient billing--Hospitals shall in addition to filing a Form DFS-F5-DWC-90: Enter the CPT®, HCPCS or workers' compensation unique code and the applicable CPT® or HCPCS modifier code in Form Locator 44 on the Form DFS-F5-DWC-90, when required pursuant to the UB-04 Manual; and Make written entry "scheduled" or "non-scheduled" in Form Locator 80 of Form revision 2006--'Remarks' on the DFS-F5-DWC- 90, when billing outpatient surgery or outpatient surgical services; and Attach an itemized statement with charges based on the facility's Charge Master; and Submit all applicable documentation required pursuant to Rule 69L-7.501, F.A.C.; Bill professional services provided by a physician or recognized practitioner on the Form DFS-F5-DWC-9, regardless of employment arrangement. (emphasis supplied). Rule 69L-7.602(1)(nn) sets forth the following relevant definition: "Recognized Practitioner" means a non- physician health care provider licensed by the Department of Health who works under the protocol of a physician or who, upon referral from a physician, can render direct billable services that are within the scope of their license, independent of the supervision of a physician. The services in this case were provided by an advanced registered nurse practitioner (ARNP), a recognized practitioner as defined by the rule. The coding on the bill submitted to the Petitioner by Raulerson indicated that the services were provided in a clinical setting (Revenue Code 510) by a recognized practitioner (CPT Code 99211). Review of the bill by the Department indicated that the charge for services attributed to "Revenue Code 510" was a "facility fee" rather than a professional services fee. Raulerson did not submit a bill for the professional services provided to the patient on August 8 and 15, 2011, by the ARNP. No specific charges for physician services were included on the bill at issue in this proceeding. Whether rendered on an inpatient or outpatient basis, the provision of hospital-based services routinely entails the services of medical professionals. The evidence failed to establish that Raulerson was legally required to submit a bill for professional services or that the bill at issue in this case should have been submitted on a professional services billing form.
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 affirming the Reimbursement Dispute Determination dated January 20, 2012, wherein the Department directed FFVA Mutual Insurance Company to pay a $300 reimbursement claim filed by Raulerson Hospital. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 25th day of July, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Julie Lewis Hauf, Esquire Law Office of Julie Lewis Hauf, P.L. 15880 Summerlin Road, Suite 300 PMB 315 Fort Myers, Florida 33908 Mari H. McCully, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Richard M. Ellis, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia and Purnell, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 202 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
