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 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.
Findings Of Fact The rule at issue has been variously codified, but will be referred to for purposes of the present case as Rule 10C-7.39(6), Florida Administrative Code. The pertinent language, which was first adopted as part of Rule 10C- 7.03(5), Florida Administrative Code, on March 30, 1976, and which was repealed on July 28, 1981, provides: Reimbursement for services provided is in accord with the standards and principles of reasonable cost as defined and applied under the Social Security Act, Title XVIII, Medicare Program. In lieu of retroactive adjustment, 6 percent shall be added to a participating hospital's costs to determine a current reimbursement rate. Respondent adopted this rule on the claimed authority of Section 409.266, Florida Statutes. In its 1969 legislative session, the Florida Legislature enacted Section 409.266, Florida Statutes, entitled "Medical Assistance for the Needy," providing the original State legislative basis and authority for Florida's entry into the Medicaid program. Section 409.266(2), Florida Statutes, as enacted, authorized the Florida Department of Social Services or any other department that the Governor might designate to: Enter into such agreement with other state agencies or any agency of the federal government and accept such duties with respect to social welfare or public aid as may be necessary to implement the provisions of subsection (1) and to qualify for federal aid including compliance with provisions of Public Law 86-778 and the "Social Security Amendments of 1965" [estab- lishing Title XIX of the Social Security Act.] Section 409.266(3), Florida Statutes, as enacted, stated that: The department of social services is authorized and directed to prepare and operate a program and budget in order to implement and comply with the provisions of public law 86-778 and the "Social Secu- rity Amendments of 1965." Chapter 69-265, Laws of Florida (1969). No provisions of Florida law other than Section 409.266, Florida Statutes, as enacted, authorized any agency to perform any function specifically to implement the Medicaid program. The State of Florida formally commenced participation in the Medicaid program effective January 1, 1970. At all times pertinent to this controversy, respondent, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services or its predecessor agencies (referred to as "HRS") , has been and continues to be the "State Agency" identified in 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a (a) (5), and charged under Section 409.266, Florida Statutes, as amended, with the formulation of a State Plan for Medical Assistance ("State Plan"), 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a, and with the ongoing responsibility for the administration of the Medicaid program in the State of Florida. Since Florida's entry into the Medicaid program in 1970, HRS has been authorized essentially to "[e]nter into such agreements with appropriate agents, other State agencies, or any agency of the Federal Government and accept such duties in respect to social welfare or public aid as may be necessary or needed to implement the provisions of Title XIX of the Social Security Act pertaining to medical assistance." Section 409.266(2)(a), Fla. Stat., as amended. HRS has never been authorized to enter into any agreements, accept any duties, or perform any functions with respect to the Medicaid program that are in contravention of or not authorized by Title XIX of the Social Security Act and implementing Federal regulations and requirements. As a prerequisite for Florida's entry into the Medicaid program, HRS prepared and filed with the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare ("HEW") a State Plan, pursuant to Title XIX of the Social Security Act, and pursuant to its delegated legislative authority set forth in Section 409.266(2)(a), Florida Statutes. (In May, 1980, HEW was redesignated the United States Department of Health and Human Services, but for purposes of this action both shall be referred to as HEW.) C.W. Hollingsworth was the HRS official who had the responsibility for supervising the preparation, the filing, and for obtaining the approval of HEW of Florida's initial State Plan Florida's initial State Plan was approved by HEW effective January 1, 1970. At the time that Florida received approval of its initial State Plan, Title XIX of the Social Security Act required state plans to provide for the payment of the reasonable cost of inpatient hospital services. At the time that Florida received approval of its initial State Plan, HEW regulations governing reimbursement for inpatient hospital services under Medicaid required the State Plan to provide for reimbursement of Medicaid inpatient hospital services furnished by those hospitals also participating in the Medicare program, applying the same standards, cost reimbursement principles, and methods of cost apportionment used in computing reimbursement to such hospitals under Medicare. 45 C.F.R. Section 250.30(a) and (b), 34 Fed. Reg. 1244 (January 25, 1969). At the time that Florida entered the Medicaid program, Medicare cost reimbursement principles in effect governing reimbursement for the cost of inpatient hospital services required payment of a participating hospital's actual and reasonable costs of providing such services to Medicare beneficiaries, and, moreover, that such payment be made on the basis of the hospital's current costs rather than upon the costs of a prior period or upon a fixed negotiated rate. 42 U.S.C. Section 1395x (v) (1)(A) 20 C.F.R. Section 405.451(c) (2), 405.402(a) [later renumbered 42 C.F.R. Section 405.451(c)(2) and Section 405.402(a)]. Such Medicare principles and standards also provided for interim payments to be made to the hospital during its fiscal year. At the conclusion of the subject fiscal year, the hospital was required to file a cost report wherein the hospital included all of its costs of providing covered inpatient services to Medicare beneficiaries. A settlement or "retroactive adjustment" process then was required to reconcile the amount of interim payments received by the hospital during the fiscal period with its allowable costs incurred during that period. If the hospital had been overpaid during the year, it was required to refund the amount of that overpayment to the Medicare program. Conversely, if the hospital had been underpaid during the year, the Medicare program was required to make an additional payment to the hospital, retroactively, in the amount of the underpayment. 20 C.F.R. Section 405.402(b)(2), 405.451(b)(2). Essentially the same Medicare principles and standards governing reimbursement of inpatient hospital services described in the two preceding paragraphs have been in effect at all times pertinent to this controversy. 42 C.F.R. Section 405.401, et seq. Florida's approved State Plan as of January 1, 1970, governing reimbursement of inpatient hospital services under the Medicaid program, committed HRS to reimburse hospitals that also participated in the Medicare program for their reasonable costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. The only versions of Florida's State Plan provisions that have been approved by HEW and that have governed HRS's reimbursement of inpatient hospital services prior to July 1, 1981, each commit HRS to reimburse hospitals that also participated in the Medicare program for their reasonable costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. Attached as an appendix to the final order is the form agreement drafted under the supervision of C.W. Hollingsworth, which has been in use from January 1, 1970, until July 1, 1981. From the inception of the Florida Medicaid program, and as a prerequisite for participation therein, a hospital has been required to execute a copy of the form agreement. A hospital may not participate in the Medicaid program without having executed such an agreement, nor may it propose any amendments thereto. The intent and effect of the form agreement is to require HRS to reimburse hospitals that also participated in the Medicare program for their reasonable costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. The form agreement requires HRS to compute a percentage " allowance in lieu of the retroactive adjustments ("percentage allowances") in determining the rates that hospitals will be paid for providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients. The form agreement requires HRS to compute a new percentage allowance each year based on hospital cost trends. The meanings of the terms "allowance in lieu of retroactive adjustments" in all pertinent state plans and "percentage allowance for the year in lieu of retroactive payment adjustment" contained in the form agreement are identical. In drafting the form agreement, HRS intended that the "percentage allowance for the year in lieu of retroactive payment adjustment" be set at a level sufficient to ensure that hospitals participating in the Medicaid program would be reimbursed their "reasonable costs" of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. At all times pertinent to this controversy, participating hospitals, like petitioner, have been reimbursed by HRS for inpatient hospital services provided to Medicaid patients in the following manner: Within ninety (90) days following the close of its fiscal year, the partici- pating hospital files a Form 2551 or 2552 Annual Statement of Reimbursable Costs, as applicable, with both Blue Cross of Florida, Inc., the major fiscal intermediary respon- sible for the administration of Part A of the federal Medicare program in the State of Florida, and with HRS. This document, also referred to as a "cost report" details various hospital and financial statistical data relating to the patient care activities engaged in by the hospital during the sub- ject fiscal period. Upon receipt of the participating hospital's cost report for a fiscal period, HRS makes an initial determination based upon Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards of the hospital's total allow- able inpatient costs, charges, and total patient days during the subject fiscal period, and then determines an inpatient per diem reimbursement rate for the period. To the inpatient per diem reimburse- ment rate is then added a percentage allow- ance in lieu of making any further retroactive corrective adjustments in reimbursement which. might have been due the hospital applicable to the reporting period. The adjusted in- patient per diem reimbursement rate is applied prospectively, and remains in effect until further adjustments in the rate are required. If HRS determines that total inpa- tient Medicaid reimbursement to a partici- pating hospital during a fiscal period exceeds the hospital's allowable and rea- sonable costs of rendering such covered inpatient services applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards, then the hospital is required to remit to HRS the amount of such overpayment. If, however, HRS determines that the total inpatient Medicaid reimbursement received by a participating hospital is less than the hospital's actual and reason- able costs of rendering such covered inpa- tient services to Medicaid patients during the period applying Medicare cost reimburse- ment principles and standards, no further retroactive corrective adjustments are made; provided, however, that should an overpayment occur in a fiscal period, it may be offset and applied retroactively against an under- payment to the participating hospital which occurred during the next preceding fiscal period only. HRS has used the following "percentage allowances" in determining Medicaid reimbursement rates for inpatient hospital services: January 1, 1970-June 30, 1972 ...12 percent July 1, 1972-approximately March 30, 1976 ... 9 percent Approximately March 31, 1976-June 30, 1981... 6 percent Since at least January 1, 1976, HRS has not recomputed the "percentage allowance" on an annual basis. Since at least January 1, 1976, HRS has not based the "percentage allowance" that it has applied in determining Medicaid inpatient hospital reimbursement rates upon hospital cost trends. HRS has used no technical methodology based upon hospital cost trends to develop any of the "percentage allowances." At least since January 1, 1974, HRS's "percentage allowances" have been less than the corresponding average annual increases in the costs incurred by Florida hospitals of providing inpatient hospital services. Prior to March 30, 1976, all of HRS's published regulations addressing reimbursement of participating hospitals for their costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients required HRS to reimburse such hospitals in accordance with Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. In certain internal documents, Petitioner's Exhibits P-44 and P-12, HRS states that the average costs of providing inpatient hospital services in the State of Florida rose at least 18 percent during calendar year 1975. In November, 1975, the Secretary of HRS was informed by HRS officials that HRS faced a projected budgetary deficit for its fiscal year ended June 30, 1976. A decision memorandum presented options to the HRS Secretary for reducing the projected deficit. Among such options presented to and approved by the HRS Secretary was to reduce the "percentage allowance" from 9 percent to 6 percent. The reduction of the "percentage allowance" by HRS from 9 percent to 6 percent was effected in response to HRS's projected deficit, and was not based upon an analysis of hospital cost trends. HRS incorporated the 6 percent "percentage allowance" into its administrative rules which were published on March 30, 1976. In response to objections raised by the Florida Hospital Association to the reduction in the percentage allowance by HRS from 9 percent to 6 percent, HRS officials reexamined that reduction. During HRS's reexamination of its previous "percentage allowance" reduction, HRS was aware of and acknowledged the fact that Florida hospital costs were increasing at an average annual rate in excess of both the earlier 9 percent and the resulting 6 percent "percentage allowance." In a memorandum dated September 13, 1976, from HRS official Charles Hall to the Secretary of HRS, Petitioner's Exhibit P-45, Charles Hall informed the Secretary that the methods and standards then used by HRS to reimburse participating hospitals for their costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients was out of compliance with federal requirements. Charles Hall further informed the Secretary that the reason HRS had not theretofore been cited by HEW for noncompliance was the manner in which the Florida State Plan had been drafted, i.e., that the State Plan required HRS to reimburse hospitals under Medicaid for the reasonable costs that they would have been reimbursed applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. In a letter dated September 20, 1976, Petitioner's Exhibit P-31, HEW informed HRS that HEW had received a complaint from the Florida Hospital Association that the methods HRS was actually using to reimburse hospitals for the costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients were in violation of federal regulation 45 C.F.R. Section 250.30(a). A proposed amendment to Florida's State Plan submitted by HRS to HEW in November, 1976, Petitioner's Exhibit P-49, if approved, would have allowed HRS to reimburse hospitals for the cost of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients under methods differing from Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards (an "alternative plan"). "Alternative plans" have been permitted under applicable federal regulations since October 21, 1974. A state participating in the Medicaid program may elect to establish an "alternative plan," but may not implement such "alternative plan" without the prior written approval of HEW. Florida has not had in effect an "alternative plan" of reimbursing participating hospitals for their costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients that was formally approved by HEW at any time prior to July 1, 1981. By letter dated January 7, 1977, Petitioner's Exhibit P-32, HEW notified HRS that it had formally cited HRS for noncompliance with federal regulations governing reimbursement of inpatient hospital services under Medicaid. HRS acknowledged their noncompliance and between November, 1976, and October 30, 1977, HRS attempted to revise its proposed "alternative plan" on at least two occasions in an attempt to obtain HEW approval. In October, 1977, HRS withdrew its proposed "alternative plan" then pending with HEW. HRS then contracted with an outside consultant, Alexander Grant & Company, to assist in the formulation of a new "alternative plan" proposal. In January, 1978, Alexander Grant & Company delivered its draft of an "alternative plan" to HRS. In October, 1978, HRS submitted a draft "alternative plan" to HEW for review and comment, and HEW expected HRS to submit a formal "alternative plan" proposal to HEW for its approval by November 1, 1978. HRS did not submit the formal "alternative plan" proposal to HEW until August 12, 1980. In a letter dated February 21, 1979, from Richard Morris, HEW Regional Medicaid Director, Region IV, to United States Senator Richard Stone of Florida, Mr. Morris advised Senator Stone: For more than two years the Florida Medicaid Program has not met Federal Requirements for inpatient hospital services reimbursement. Their payment methodology under-reimburses certain hospitals year after year. The pros- pective interim per diem rate paid by Florida to hospitals includes a percentage allowance to cover increased costs during the forthcom- ing year that is consistently less than increased costs in some hospitals. If the payments are less than costs, the difference is not reimbursed. This results in underpay- ments. We have worked closely with Florida to develop an acceptable alternative system that would meet Federal requirements. To date, Florida has not implemented such a system despite having received informal HEW agreement on a draft plan developed more than a year ago. It is our understanding that this alternative plan is not a high priority item at this time. We will con- tinue to work with HRS staff to secure Florida compliance regarding this require- ment. Petitioner's Exhibit P-46. Since August 12, 1980, HRS has submitted to HEW for its approval at least four more versions of an "alternative plan." Petitioner's Exhibits P-120, P-121, P-123, and P-152. Each of these versions were approved by the Secretary of HRS, and HRS believes each to comply with applicable Florida law. Mr. Erwin Bodo, Ph.D., was and is the HRS official responsible for the development and drafting of Exhibits P-120, P-121, P-123, and P-152. In June, 1981, HEW approved an "alternative plan" for the State of Florida (Exhibit P-152) , and such "alternative plan" was implemented effective July 1, 1981. Until July 1, 1981, HRS continued to use the 6 percent percentage allowance" to compute inpatient hospital reimbursement under Medicaid. Even after its repeal, Rule 10C-7.39(6), Florida Administrative Code, is applied by respondent in calculating reimbursement for Medicaid services provided between March 30, 1976, and July 1, 1981. From November 20, 1976, until July 1, 1981 the period in which HRS was attempting to secure HEW approval for an alternative plan--HRS was aware that the costs of inpatient hospital services were increasing at an average annual rate in excess of the 6 percent "percentage allowance." From September 1, 1976, through July 1, 1981, HRS has been out of compliance with its approved State Plan provisions, and HEW regulations governing reimbursement for inpatient hospital services under Medicaid because HRS's methods for reimbursing hospitals for the cost of providing those services to Medicaid patients have resulted in a substantial number of hospitals including petitioner--being reimbursed at a lower rate than the hospitals would have been reimbursed applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. Since the quarter ending December 31, 1976, until July 1, 1981, HEW has formally cited HRS as being in contravention of its approved State Plan provisions, and HEW (now HHS) regulations, governing reimbursement for inpatient hospital services under Medicaid because HRS's methods for reimbursing hospitals for the cost of providing those services to Medicaid patients have resulted in a substantial number of hospitals--including petitioner--being reimbursed at a lower rate than the hospitals would have been reimbursed applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. PAN AMERICAN HOSPITAL CORPORATION Petitioner, Pan American Hospital Corporation, is a not-for-profit corporation, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. Petitioner is a tax-exempt organization as determined by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. At all times pertinent to this controversy, petitioner has operated and continues to operate a duly licensed 146-bed, short-term acute care general hospital, located at 5959 Northwest Seventh Street, Miami, Florida 33126. At all times pertinent to this controversy, petitioner has been and continues to be a duly certified provider of inpatient hospital services, eligible to participate in the Florida Medicaid program since January 27, 1974. The Appendix to this Final Order is a true and correct copy of the "Participation Agreement" entered into between petitioner and HRS, whereunder, inter alia, petitioner became eligible to receive payment from HRS for covered inpatient hospital services provided to Medicaid patients. At all times pertinent to this controversy, petitioner has been a certified "provider of services" participating in the Medicare program. During the fiscal periods in dispute in this action, petitioner did provide covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, and became eligible for payment by HRS of its reasonable costs of providing such services, determined in accor- dance with Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. With respect to each of the fiscal periods in dispute in this action, petitioner timely filed all cost reports and other financial data with HRS or its contracting agents, including Blue Cross of Florida, Inc., to enable HRS to determine petitioner's reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients. During each of the fiscal periods in dispute in this action, HRS failed to reimburse petitioner for its reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, determined in accordance with applicable Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. Such costs incurred by petitioner were reasonable, necessary, related to patient care, and less than customary charges within the meaning of those Medicare principles and standards. With respect to each of the fiscal periods in dispute, HRS and/or its contracting agent, Blue Cross of Florida, Inc. , reviewed and audited the cost reports filed by petitioner, and as a result of such review and audits set or adjusted, as applicable, the Medicaid inpatient per diem reimbursement rate at which petitioner would be paid during the next succeeding fiscal period or until that rate was again adjusted. MOTION TO DISMISS RULE CHALLENGE DENIED Respondent sought dismissal of petitioner's challenge to Rule 10C- 7.39(6), Florida Administrative Code, on grounds that the challenged rule provision has now been repealed (effective July 28, 1981). By this motion, respondent raises the question whether petitioner remains "substantially affected" notwithstanding the repeal. The parties are in agreement that respondent still applies Rule 10C-7.39(6) , Florida Administrative Code, in calculating reimbursement for providers like petitioner who furnished Medicaid services during the time between adoption of the rule and its repeal. The present case resembles State Department of Transportation v. Pan American Construction Company, 338 So.2d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), app. dism. 345 So.2d 427 (Fla. 1977). The rule challenged in that case had been promulgated pursuant to a statute that was later amended by legislation which took effect after the Section 120.56 hearing, but before entry of a final order invalidating the rule. In response to the statutory amendment, moreover, the agency whose rule was under challenge adopted an emergency rule superseding the challenged rule. On appeal, the agency argued that the rule challenge was moot. The court ruled: While normally the law as it exists at the time of review will be applied to a pending case, in this proceeding, begun under the old law and rules adopted pursuant to it, we consider that respondents are entitled to construction of such law and rules. Their rights under contracts with peti- tioner which were in existence during the life of the former statute and rules may be affected by the construction of that statute and the rules adopted pursuant to it. State Department of Transportation v. Pan American Construction Co., 338 So.2d 1291, 1294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) In the present case there has been no statutory amendment, but here as in State Department of Transportation v. Pan American Construction Co., the proceedings pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, began before the repeal of the challenged rule; and the parties' "rights under contracts . . . which were in existence during the life of the former . . . [rule] may be affected by the construction of that . . . [rule]." 338 So.2d at 1294. Simultaneously with the present proceedings, petitioner and respondent are litigating the question of what moneys, if any, respondent owes petitioner as reimbursement for Medicaid services furnished during periods which include the entire time that Rule 10C- 7.39(6) was in effect. No. 80-112. Even though Rule 10C-7.39(6), Florida Administrative Code, stands repealed, petitioner remains "substantially affected by" the rule, within the meaning of Section 120.56(1), Florida Statutes (1979). MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED Respondent contends that these proceedings are defective "for failure to join an indispensable party," viz., the federal government, because it "is Respondent's intention, should any liability result from this action, to make a claim for federal financial participation as to approximately fifty-nine percent of such liability [See generally] 42 U.S.C. Section 1320b-2(a)(2)." Motion to Dismiss, p. 2. This motion is also addressed to the petition in the companion substantial interest case, No. 80-112, and discussed in the recommended order in that case. For present purposes, it suffices to state the self-evident: No agency can avoid an administrative challenge to a rule it alone has promulgated on grounds that some other party's interest may be adversely affected by invalidation of the rule. CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS Among other things, petitioner contends that Rule 10C-7.39 (6), Florida Administrative Code, should be invalidated as violative of state and federal constitutional prohibitions against impairment of contractual obligations. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution of the State of Florida proscribes "law[s] impairing the obligation of contracts," and the federal constitution also forbids any "State . . . [to] pass any . . . law impairing the obligation of contracts." Article I, Section 10. See United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 975 (1977). Challenges to administrative rules brought pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes (1979), cannot, however, be predicated on constitutional grounds. State Department of Administration, Division of Personnel v. State Department of Administration, Division of Administrative Hearings, 326 So.2d 187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). See Department of Environmental Regulation v. Leon County, 344 So.2d 290, 295 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). INVALID EXERCISE OF DELEGATED LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY The main thrust of petitioner's challenge to Rule 10C-7.39 (6), Florida Administrative Code, is its contention that respondent adopted the challenged rule not to implement Section 409.266, Florida Statutes, but in an attempt to avoid obligations imposed by Section 409.266, Florida Statutes, and the provisions of federal law incorporated by reference in that State statute. The challenged rule pertains to agreements made between respondent and providers of medical services in accordance with the provisions of Title XIX of the Social Security Act. The statute authorizes respondent to "[e]nter into . . . agreements as may be necessary or needed to implement the provisions of Title XIX of the Social Security Act pertaining to medical assistance." Section 409.266(2)(a) , Florida Statutes (1979). No party suggests that any other State statutory provision furnishes substantive authority for promulgation of Rule 10C-7.39(6), Florida Administrative Code, and the parties have stipulated that "HRS has never been authorized to . . . perform any functions with respect to the Medicaid program that are in contravention of or not authorized by Title XIX of the Social Security Act and implementing Federal regulations and requirements." Agency rules must conform to enabling statutes and may not repeal, amend, or modify any statute. State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. McTigue, 387 So.2d 454 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Florida Psychiatric Society, 382 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); State Department of Transportation v. Pan American Construction Co., 338 So.2d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) app. dism. 345 So.2d 427 (Fla. 1977) Incorporated by reference into Section 409.266, Florida Statutes, was the federal statutory requirement that hospitals providing Medicaid services be reimbursed by respondent for reasonable costs incurred in accordance with an approved State Plan. 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a (a)(13)(B) , Pub. L. 89-97, Section 121(a), redesiquated 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a (a) (13)(D), Pub. L. 90- 248, Section 224(a). At the time of its incorporation into State law, this federal statute had been definitively explicated by federal regulations requiring that reasonable cost for Medicaid purposes be calculated in accordance with applicable Medicare principles for purposes of reimbursing hospitals like petitioner that furnished both Medicaid and Medicare services. 2/ 42 C.F.R. Section 50.30(b), 34 Fed. Reg. 1244 et seq. (January 25, 1969). In addition, all Florida "State Plan provisions . . . approved by HEW and. . govern[ing] HRS's reimbursement of inpatient hospital services prior to July 1, 1981, . . . commit HRS to reimburse hospitals that also participated in the Medicare program for their reasonable costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards." Pre-hearing Stipulation, 19. Even before adopting Rule 10C-7.39(6), Florida had begun setting Medicaid reimbursement rates by adjusting the previous year's rates upward to reflect inflation, as a matter of policy. As the parties have stipulated, in November of 1975, a budgetary deficit was projected for HRS; and, even though HRS was aware that inflation was substantially higher than 6 percent, HRS eventually decided to promulgate the rule now under challenge, setting the adjustment at 6 percent. HRS promulgated Rule 10C-7.39(6), Florida Administrative Code, not in furtherance of its statutory charge to reimburse Medicaid providers for costs reasonably incurred, but in order expediently to cut its own costs by disregarding the statutory scheme and reimbursing Medicaid providers less than the costs they had reasonably incurred. Cf. Patricia Godboldt v. David Pingree, Secretary, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, State of Florida, No. 81-2862 (2d Cir.; Prelim. Inqy., Nov. 25, 1981). UNCODIFIED POLICY CHALLENGED AS RULE Petitioner challenges not only Rule 10C-7.39(6), Florida Administrative Code, but also, as "an illicit rule," HRS's prior practice of setting reimbursement rates by adjusting the previous year's rates. The percentage allowances under preexisting practice were higher (9 and 12 3/ percent) but the methodology was the same as that codified in Rule 10C-7.39(6), Florida Administrative Code. The parties stipulated to the existence of a practice that reflected a policy that changed over time, see McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) , but did not stipulate that this practice reflected a hard and fast "rule." The parties stipulated that "HRS used [12 percent from January 1, 1970, to June 30, 1972, and 9 percent from July 1, 1972, to approximately March 30, 1976] . . . in determining Medicaid reimbursement rates for inpatient hospital services," but did not prove or stipulate to the existence of any formal document or other written statement "issued by the agency head for implementation by subordinates with little or no room for discretionary modification." State Department of Administration v. Stevens, 344 So.2d 290, 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). In the absence of such a stipulation or proof, the agency's practice of requiring a 9 percent "percentage allowance, has not been shown to amount in itself to an illicit rule. Department of Corrections v. McCain Sales of Florida, Inc., 400 So.2d 1301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). ATTACHMENT 4.19A Petitioner's challenge to Attachment 4.19A of the Florida State Plan for Medical Assistance was conditioned by the words "to the extent that Attachment 4.19A . . . Is interpreted in a manner different than that set forth in Paragraph 15" of the petition. Since the parties stipulated, in substance, to the allegations of paragraph 15 of the petition, the condition for the challenge never occurred. In any event, it is very clear that Attachment 4.19A did not have the force of a rule, inasmuch as its key pronouncement, viz., that "retroactive adjustments are prohibited by skate statute" was completely disregarded by respondent. Rule 10C-7.39(6), Florida Administrative Code, the policies which preceded that rule, and every contract respondent entered into with providers of Medicaid services contemplated retroactive adjustments. It is, accordingly, ORDERED: The final sentence of respondent's Rule 10C-7.39(6), Florida Administrative Code, is hereby declared to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Petitioner's challenge to the percentage allowance policies that preexisted Rule 10C-7.39(6), Florida Administrative Code, is dismissed. Petitioner's challenge to Attachment 4.19A of the Florida State Plan for Medical Assistance is dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 4th day of December, 1981.
The Issue The issue is what is the correct amount of workers’ compensation reimbursement to Aventura Medical Center for emergency services rendered to patient J.R. 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, is charged with the review and resolution of disputes regarding the payment of providers by carriers for medical services rendered to injured workers. The Department has exclusive jurisdiction to decide reimbursement disputes. § 440.13(7) and (11)(c), Fla. Stat. Intervenor, Aventura, is a health care provider within the meaning of Subsections 440.13(1)(h), Florida Statutes. Aventura is an acute care hospital located in Aventura, Miami- Dade County, Florida. On May 27, 2009, Aventura provided emergency services to the patient J.R., a 41-year-old male, who was injured at his place of work. J.R. was examined by Aventura’s emergency department physician. He received two Computed Tomography (“CT”) scans, one of the abdomen and one of the pelvis. He also received a urinalysis, a complete blood count (CBC), and an X-ray of his left side and ribs. J.R. was discharged after these tests. Aventura’s total charges for J.R.’s outpatient emergency services were $9,877.47. Aventura submitted its claim for reimbursement using the standard “uniform billing” form, UB-04. The UB-04 sets out each service provided to J.R., the individual charge for each service, and the total charge. The individual services on the UB-04 submitted for patient J.R. are listed as follows: comprehensive metabolic; assay lipase; amylase syrum; automated hemocram; urinalysis; X-ray of the ribs and chest; X-ray of the abdomen; contrast CT scan of the pelvis; contrast CT scan of the abdomen; the emergency department visit itself, and low osmolar contrast media (LOCM). Aventura’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 Aventura. 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, Aventura received a check from Guarantee in the amount of $6,987.21, along with an “Explanation of Medical Benefits” review (EOBR), which is required to be sent along with the bill payment. The EOBR sets out the 11 individual components of Aventura’s claim, and indicates that the first nine were approved for reimbursement at 75 percent of the charge billed by Aventura. The tenth component is the charge for the emergency department visit itself. For that charge, Aventura billed $722.00, of which 75 per cent would be $541.50. The EOBR indicates the corresponding 25 percent discount from billed charges ($180.50) under a column entitled “MRA,” and indicates further that an additional reduction of $143.28 was applied, leaving an approved payment of $398.22 for the emergency room component of the claim. The additional reduction of $143.28 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 eleventh and last component is the charge for the LOCM, which was completely disallowed with the explanation, “Correction to a Prior Claim.” The EOBR also has references to “convalescent care” and “PIP days,” neither of which apply to Aventura’s claim. The EOBR indicates a “procedure code” of 99283. The UB-04 submitted by Aventura also used the code 99283. This code is 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 were 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, Aventura timely filed a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute, with attachments, to the Department. Aventura alleged in its Petition that the correct reimbursement amount owed was $7,408.10, leaving an underpayment of $420.89. 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 Mr. von Sydow dated November 9, 2009. The letter asserted that the correct payment to the hospital (Aventura) 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 99283, asserting that the proper billing code should have been 99282. 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 18, 2009, the Department issued its Determination. The Determination states in pertinent part: The 2006 HRM, Section 12.,A., vests specific authority in the carrier to review the hospital’s Charge Master to verify charges on the itemized statement and to disallow reimbursement for specifically itemized services that do not appear to be medically necessary. No documentation submitted indicates the carrier elected to exercise this option. Moreover, the carrier did not allege that any service was deemed not “medically necessary” or that the charges present on the DWC-90 failed to match the charges on the provider’s Charge Master. Therefore, the OMS finds the charges billed by the hospital are the hospital’s usual and customary charges. The 2006 HRM provides for reimbursement of emergency room services at seventy-five percent (75%) of the hospital’s usual and customary charges. Whereas, the carrier failed to substantiate is [sic] adjustments and disallowances of reimbursement on the EOBR and the hospital’s billed charges are accepted as the hospital’s billed charges are accepted as the hospital’s usual and customary charges, the OMS determines correct total reimbursement equals $7,408.10 ($9,877.47 x 0.75). 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 J.R.’S EMERGENCY SERVICES As mentioned above, Aventura reported the emergency department visit using CPT Code 99283. No one from the hospital testified but Aventura’s expert, Allan W. March, M.D., reviewed Aventura’s hospital record for J.R. 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 Intervenor and Respondent. Dr. March described J.R. from the hospital record as follows: This is a 41-year-old male who was kicked in the flank one week prior to his presentation to the emergency department, while engaged in a fight, and was seen immediately prior to his appearance in the emergency department by a workers’ compensation physician, who referred the patient to the emergency department noting a stat referral, meaning that he wanted that patient evaluated within the hour. Dr. March reviewed Aventura’s hospital record for J.R. to analyze whether Aventura appropriately used CPT code 99283. Dr. March explained that Aventura’s selection of CPT code 99283 for the UB-04 was, in all likelihood, due to a particular reference in J.R.’s patient record. Specifically, in that section of the record indicating “Permanent Medical Record Copy” at the bottom of each page, page 6 reflects an entry made on May 29, 2009, which was two days after the services were rendered. The May 29, 2009, entry was made by the emergency physician to assign a level for emergency physician services, and indicates “ER LEVEL III.” Although the “level” reference is for physician services and not for facility services, it would have been used by Aventura’s hospital coder in the absence of an emergency department charge sheet adopting the widely used guidelines from the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP Guidelines).” Aventura used an alternate methodology of determining the severity level of the patient, in which the coder would have used the complexity of the medical evaluation by the physician. 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. Thus, Dr. March determined that Aventura could have justified the use of CPT code 99284, which is higher than the 99283 CPT code assigned by Aventura, had the ACEP guidelines been used. Dr. March further explained that the separate charge for the emergency visit is intended to compensate the hospital for “evaluation and Management” costs not captured in other line items. According to Mr. March, the separate charge does not duplicate charges for specific procedures rendered, such as a CT scan. The claim submitted by Aventura 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 Aventura’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 Aventura should have used code 99282 instead of 99283. Mr. von Sydow supported his conclusion that CPT code 99282 is the appropriate code for the emergency department visit by comparing the procedure codes and diagnosis codes reported by the hospital with examples of appropriate billing for emergency department services in the CPT code handbook. Mr. von Sydow concluded that the hospital’s billing with CPT code 99283 was not appropriate and that the hospital should have billed with CPT code 99282. Mr. von Sydow also calculated that while the hospital billed $722 with CPT code 99283, its usual and customary charge for a visit billed with 99282 is $600. Moreover, Mr. von Sydow referenced a study by 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 also familiar with the ACEP guidelines referenced 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, J.R.’s injuries supported the assignment of CPT code 99283 as designated by Aventura. Dr. Perlman agreed with Dr. March’s opinion that Aventura could have billed at a higher level (99284), but not based on the number and kind of interventions or procedures. Dr. Perlman instead referenced examples in the ACEP guidelines. Dr. Perlman acknowledged that hospitals are free to use the ACEP guidelines and that many hospitals do so. Both Drs. March and Perlman are of the opinion that Aventura’s use of CPT code 99283 was appropriate, and further agreed that Aventura could have assigned the higher code of 99284. Therefore, coding J.R.’s emergency department visit as 99283 by Aventura was appropriate.
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 Aventura consistent with the Determination Letter dated November 18, 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.
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
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration is required by law and rule of the Agency to include the gain or loss on the sale of depreciable assets as the result of a sale or disposal, in the calculation of Medicaid allowable costs.
Findings Of Fact Prior to the hearing, the parties submitted a Joint Stipulation which is incorporated in part herein as follows: Petitioner purchased Orlando General Hospital ("OGH"), Medicaid provider number 120065, on December 31, 1990. Upon its sale, OGH merged into and became part of Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., wherein after it was known as Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., d/b/a Florida Hospital East ("Florida Hospital East"). Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., d/b/a Florida Hospital East is a wholly owned subsidiary of Adventist Health System Sunbelt Healthcare Corporation. Florida Hospital East assumed all of the assets and liabilities of OGH. OGH filed a terminating cost report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 1990. On December 31, 1990, the date of sale of OGH to Petitioner, OGH incurred a loss on the sale of the hospital, a depreciable asset. The loss on the sale of OGH was included on both OGH's Medicaid and Medicare terminating cost reports. A loss on the sale of a depreciable asset is the amount that the net book value of the asset sold exceeds the purchase price. A gain or loss on the sale of a depreciable asset is a capital cost. Due to the mechanism of the cost report, a loss on the sale of a depreciable asset is divided into "periods" based upon the time period to which the loss relates. The portion of the loss related to the fiscal year in which the asset is sold is referred to as a "current period" loss. The portion of the loss that relates to all fiscal years prior to the year in which the asset is sold is referred to as a "prior period" loss. Gains and losses related to the current period are included on Worksheet A of the Medicare and Medicaid cost report. Current period capital costs flow to Worksheet B-II Part and B Part III [sic] of the Medicaid cost report. Gains and losses related to the prior period are included on Worksheet E of the Medicare and Medicaid cost reports. OGH's current period is the fiscal year ending 12/31/90. OGH's prior periods in which it participated in the Medicaid Program are 10/24/84 through 12/31/89. OGH's audited Medicaid cost report included in allowable Medicaid costs a loss on the sale of OGH related to the current period. OGH's audited Medicaid cost report did not include in allowable Medicaid costs a loss on the sale of OGH related to the prior periods. The loss on the sale of OGH related to the current period was included in Worksheet A of OGH's audited Medicaid cost report. These costs, including the loss on the sale of OGH, flowed to Worksheet B Part II. OGH's audited Medicare cost report included as allowable Medicare costs the loss on the sale of OGH related to both the current and prior periods in the amount of $9,874,047. The loss from the sale of OGH related to the current period was included on Worksheet A of OGH's audited Medicare cost report. The costs from Worksheet A of OGH's audited Medicare cost report flowed to Worksheet B Part II of OGH's audited Medicare cost report. The loss related to the prior period was included on Worksheet E Part B of OGH's audited Medicaid cost report. The Agency utilizes costs included on Worksheet A of the Medicaid cost report to calculate Medicaid allowable costs. The Agency utilizes the capital costs included on Worksheet B Part II and/or B Part III to calculate allowable Medicaid fixed costs. The Agency does not utilize costs included on Worksheet E Part III to calculate Medicaid allowable costs. The Agency reimburses providers based upon Medicaid allowable costs. aa. The Agency did not include the portion of the loss on the sale of OGH related to the prior periods in the calculation of the OGH's Medicaid allowable costs. bb. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. (Intermediary), contracted with the Agency to perform all audits of Medicaid cost reports. Agency reimbursement to Medicaid providers is governed by Florida's Title XIX Inpatient Hospital Reimbursement Plan (Plan), which has been incorporated in Rule 59G-6.020, Florida Administrative Code. The Plan provides that Medicaid reimbursement for inpatient services shall be based upon a prospectively determined per diem. The payment is based upon the facility's allowable Medicaid costs which include both variable costs and fixed costs. Fixed costs include capital costs and allowable depreciation costs. The per diem payment is calculated by the Agency based upon each facility's allowable Medicaid costs which must be taken by the agency from the facility's cost report. Capital costs, such as depreciation, are found on Worksheet B, Part II and Part III. The Plan requires all facilities participating in the Medicaid program to submit an annual cost report to the Agency. The report is to be in detail, listing their "costs for their entire reporting year making appropriate adjustment as required by the plan for the determination of allowable costs." The cost report must be prepared in accordance with the Medicare method of reimbursement and cost finding, except as modified by the Plan. The cost reports relied upon by the Agency to set rates are audited by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. which has been directed by the Agency to follow Medicare principles of reimbursement in its audit of cost reports. Prior to January 11, 1995, the Plan did not expressly state whether capital gains or losses relating to a change of facility ownership were allowable costs. The 1995 amendment to the Plan contained language expressly providing "[f]or the purposes of this plan, gains or losses resulting from a change of ownership will not be included in the determination of allowable cost for Medicaid reimbursement." No change was made by the amendment to the Medicare principles of reimbursement regarding the treatment of gains and losses on the sale of depreciable assets. The Medicare principles of reimbursement provides that gains and losses from the disposition of depreciable assets are includable in computing allowable costs. The Provider Reimbursement Manual (HIM-15)(PRM), identifies the methods of disposal for assets that are recognized. They include a bona fide sale of depreciable assets, but do not mention a change of ownership. PRM Section 132 treats a loss on a sale of a depreciable asset as an adjustment to depreciation for both the current and periods. Depreciable assets with an expected life of more than two years may not be expensed in the year in which they are put into service. They must be capitalized and a proportionate share of the cost expensed as depreciation over the life of the property. To do so, the provider must estimate the useful life of the property based upon the guidelines of the American Hospital Association, and divide the cost by the number of years of estimated life. It is this yearly depreciation figure which is claimed on the cost report and which is reimbursed. When a depreciable asset is sold for less than book value (net undepreciated value), the provider suffers a loss. Petitioner claims that Medicare holds that in such a case it must be concluded that the estimated depreciation was erroneous and the provider did not receive adequate reimbursement during the years the asset was in service. Medicare accounting procedures do not distinguish between the treatment of a loss on the sale of depreciable assets as related to current and prior periods. PIM Section 132 requires that Medicare recognize the entire loss as an allowable cost for both the current and prior periods, and Medicare treated Petitioner's loss from the sale of its facility as an allowable cost for Medicare reimbursement under both current and prior periods. With the adoption of the January 1995 amendment, however, the wording of the state plan was changed to specifically prohibit gains or losses from a change of ownership from being included in allowable costs for Medicaid reimbursement. This was the first time the state plan addressed gains and losses on the disposal of depreciable assets resulting from a change of ownership. The Agency contends, however, that it has never reimbursed for losses on disposal of property due to a change of ownership, and that the inclusion of the new language was to clarify a pre-existing policy which was being followed at the time of the 1995 amendment, and which goes back to the late 1970s. It would appear, however, that the policy was never written down; was never conveyed to Blue Cross/Blue shield; was never formally conveyed to Medicaid providers; and was never conveyed to the community at large. When pressed, the Agency could not identify any specific case where the policy was followed by the Agency. While admitting that it is Agency practice not to treat losses from the sale of depreciable assets in prior periods as an allowable cost, Petitioner contends that it has been the Agency's practice to treat the loss on the sale of depreciable assets relating to the current period as an allowable cost, and cited several instances where this appears to have been done. The Agency contends that any current period losses paid were paid without knowledge of the Agency, in error, and in violation of the plan. On October 25, 1996, the Agency entered a Final Order in a case involving Florida Hospital/Waterman, Inc., as Petitioner, and the Agency as Respondent. This case was filed by the Petitioner to challenge the Agency's treatment of the loss on the sale of Waterman Medical Center, Inc., another of Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt Healthcare Corporation, and the Final Order in issue incorporated a stipulation into which the parties had entered and which addressed the issue in question here. The stipulation included certain position statements including: A loss on the sale of depreciable assets is an allowable cost under the Medicare Principles of Reimbursement. The State Plan does not specify that the loss on the sale of a depreciable asset is to be treated in a manner different than under the Medicare Principles of Reimbursement. Thus the loss on the sale of a depreciable asset is an allowable cost under the State Plan. The Agency agrees, in accordance with the Medicare Principles of Reimbursement, that under the terms of the State Plan, prior period losses for Waterman will be allocated to prior periods and included in the calculation of the per diem and per visit rates. According to William G. Nutt, Petitioner's director of reimbursement, the only difference between the facts of the Waterman case and the instant case is that they relate to the sale of different facilities. The treatment of loss on the sale of depreciable assets as outlined in the Waterman stipulation is in conflict with the amended Plan and with the unwritten and unuttered Agency policy as urged by the Agency in this case. The Agency agreed in one case to a treatment of loss which it now rejects in the instant case. Petitioner urges that subsequent to the settlement of the Waterman case, but before the instant case was set for hearing, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations during which, according to counsel for the Agency, they made "significant" progress toward applying the settlement in the Waterman case to the current case. In a motion filed to delay the setting of this case for hearing, counsel for the Agency indicated the parties were "finalizing" settlement to resolve the case without resorting to a final hearing, and in a follow-up agreed motion for continuance, advised that the "parties [had] finalized a settlement document [which they were] in the process of executing. The settlement agreement reached by the parties was signed by a representative of the Petitioner and then forwarded to the Agency for signature. The document was not signed by the Agency, and when Petitioner sought enforcement of the "settlement" by an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, the request was denied as being outside the jurisdiction of the judge, and the matter was set for hearing.
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 including the loss on the sale of Orlando General Hospital as an allowable cost for determining Petitioner's entitlement to Medicaid reimbursement for both current and prior years. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Joanne B. Erde, Esquire Broad and Cassel Miami Center Suite 3000 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Jonathan E. Sjostrom, Esquire Steel Hector & Davis LLP 215 South Monroe Street Suite 601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1804 Mark S. Thomas, Esquire Madeline McGuckin, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issues to be determined are: whether Petitioners have standing; whether the petition of Automated HealthCare Solutions, Inc. (AHCS), was timely filed1/; and whether Respondent’s proposed rules 69L-31.005(2)(d), 69L-31.016(1), and 69L-31.016(2) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority on the grounds raised by Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact The Challenged Proposed Rules At issue in the proposed rule challenge proceeding are three provisions that are part of an overall rulemaking exercise by Respondent Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Respondent, Department, or Division), to amend Florida Administrative Code Chapter 69L-31. That rule chapter bears the misnomer “Utilization and Reimbursement Dispute Rule”--a misnomer because, rather than a single rule, the chapter currently contains 12 rules, with a history note of one additional rule that was repealed. The existing 12 rules in chapter 69L-31, in effect without amendment since November 2006, carry out the Department’s statutory authority to receive, review, and resolve reimbursement disputes between workers’ compensation insurance carriers (carriers) and providers of health care services, medication, and supplies to injured workers. See § 440.13(7), Fla. Stat. A “reimbursement dispute” is “any disagreement” between a provider and carrier “concerning payment for medical treatment.” § 440.13(1)(q), Fla. Stat. The proposed amendments to chapter 69L-31 include revisions to existing rules, the repeal of one existing rule, and the addition of two new rules. The challenges at issue here are directed to both paragraphs of a newly proposed rule which would become rule 69L-31.016, if adopted. One challenge is also directed to an amendment of an existing rule. Proposed rule 69L-31.016, entitled “Reimbursement Disputes Involving a Contract or Workers’ Compensation Managed Care Arrangement or Involving Compensability or Medical Necessity,” would provide as follows, if adopted: When either the health care provider or carrier asserts that a contract between them establishes the amount of reimbursement to the health care provider, or where the carrier provided health care services to the injured worker through a workers’ compensation managed care arrangement pursuant to Section 440.134, F.S., the Department will not issue a finding that there has been any improper disallowance or adjustment. Instead, the determination will only indicate the reimbursement amount for the treatment established by the appropriate reimbursement schedules, practice parameters, and protocols of treatment in Chapter 440, F.S., to assist the health care provider and carrier in their independent application of the provisions of the contract or workers’ compensation managed care arrangement to resolve the dispute. When the carrier asserts the treatment is not compensable or medically necessary and as a result does not reimburse, the determination will only address line items not related to compensability or medical necessity. If the petitioner has submitted documentation demonstrating the carrier authorized the treatment, the Department will issue a finding of improper disallowance or adjustment. Although these rules were not proposed for adoption until December 2016, Respondent has been implementing an unadopted policy that is consistent with paragraph (1) since August 2015. Respondent also has been implementing an unadopted policy that is similar to paragraph (2) since November 2015. The other object of challenge is the proposed deletion of rule 69L-31.005(2)(d), which currently provides: If the answer to question 5 on the Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute Form [asking if reimbursement is pursuant to a contract or rate agreement] is yes, [submit] a copy of all applicable provision(s) of the reimbursement contract. Although the evidence was less than clear, it does not appear that Respondent is already implementing this proposed change. The Parties Petitioners and Intervenors all are regular participants (or, in the case of FSASC, an association whose members are regular participants) in provider-carrier reimbursement disputes pursuant to section 440.13(7), Florida Statutes, before the Division. Petitioners represent the provider side of these reimbursement disputes, while Intervenors represent the carrier side of the reimbursement disputes. Petitioner Oak Hill is a private, for-profit hospital that cares for thousands of Florida patients each year, including injured workers. Petitioner Parallon provides revenue cycle services for HCA-affiliated Florida hospitals, including Oak Hill. Among other things, Parallon acts on behalf of the HCA-affiliated hospitals in workers’ compensation claim disputes. Parallon acts on the hospitals’ behalf to resolve reimbursement disputes with carriers, including: acting for the hospitals to resolve reimbursement disputes under chapter 69L-31; coordinating any resultant administrative litigation before DOAH; and taking steps necessary to collect amounts owed following receipt of the Division’s determination. Parallon is expressly authorized to participate in reimbursement disputes as a “petitioner,” as defined in proposed rule 69L-31.003, on behalf of Oak Hill and other HCA-affiliated hospitals. Oak Hill and Parallon are regulated by, and must comply, with the requirements of chapter 69L-31 (which will include the proposed rules, if adopted) in reimbursement disputes with carriers. Petitioner FSASC is the primary organization of ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) in Florida. Among the purposes of the FSASC is to advance the ASC industry, and its member centers’ interests, through governmental advocacy. To that extent, the FSASC maintains close contact with state agencies to monitor and provide input into legislation and regulations that govern or affect ASC operations. In furtherance of this role, the FSASC has been an active participant in all phases of Respondent’s rulemaking efforts with regard to the proposed rules. Another purpose of the FSASC is to promote, assist, and enhance its members’ ability to provide ambulatory surgical services to injured workers efficiently and cost effectively throughout Florida and, in so doing, promote and protect the interests of the public, patients, and FSASC members. FSASC’s participation in this proceeding is consistent with its purposes, and the relief sought--invalidation of the challenged proposed rules (with possible attorney’s fees incurred in connection with this proceeding)--is appropriate for an organization to pursue in a representative capacity. A substantial number of FSASC’s members provide health care services to patients who are injured workers in Florida and who receive workers’ compensation benefits in accordance with chapter 440. These health care services are reimbursable by the patients’ employers’ carriers. FSASC’s members are participants in reimbursement disputes with carriers and are regulated by, and must comply with, the requirements of chapter 69L-31 (which will include the proposed rules, if adopted). Petitioner AHCS is a technology and prescription medication claims processing company. Many physicians who dispense medication from their offices to injured workers assign their rights, title, and interest to the prescription medication claims to AHCS. Prescription Partners, LLC, is wholly-owned and operated by AHCS and is the billing entity of AHCS. In some instances, AHCS contracts with physicians, while Prescription Partners, LLC, pursues the billing and reimbursement disputes on behalf of the physicians under the contract of assignment. AHCS is authorized to participate in reimbursement disputes as a “petitioner,” as defined in proposed rule 69L-31.003. As a participant in reimbursement disputes, AHCS is regulated by, and must comply with, the requirements of chapter 69L-31 (which will include the proposed rules, if adopted). Respondent is the state agency tasked with administering chapter 440 in a way that promotes “an efficient and self-executing” workers’ compensation system “which is not an economic or administrative burden” and ensures “a prompt and cost-effective delivery of payments.” § 440.015, Fla. Stat. The Division’s medical services section administers the provider-carrier reimbursement dispute process and issues the required determinations pursuant to section 440.13(7). The determinations are made in accordance with chapter 440 and the applicable reimbursement manuals, which are codified as rules. Intervenor Zenith is a foreign, for-profit corporation licensed by the Department to provide workers’ compensation insurance to employers throughout Florida. As a carrier, and in the normal course of its workers’ compensation claim-handling responsibilities, Zenith regularly authorizes, adjusts, and pays for medical benefits for injured workers for causally-related and medically necessary treatment, including treatment rendered by physicians, hospitals, ASCs, pharmacies and prescription drug vendors, physical therapists, and other licensed health care providers, such as Petitioners. As a carrier, Zenith is regulated by chapter 440 and the related rules of the Division, including chapter 69L-31 (which will include the proposed rules, if adopted). All parties stipulated that the challenged proposed rules directly and immediately affect the rights and obligations of Zenith, and directly impact the financial obligations of Zenith in medical bill payment, as well as in any statutory reimbursement dispute between a health care provider and Zenith under section 440.13(7). The proposed rules dictate which processes will govern reimbursement disputes involving Zenith, and whether Zenith may rely fully on the provisions of reimbursement contracts. Intervenors, the Summit Companies, are Florida- licensed monoline workers’ compensation insurance companies that are managed by a managing general agent, Summit Consulting LLC, and regulated by the Department. Pursuant to their workers’ compensation insurance policies, the Summit Companies pay workers’ compensation claims for injured workers, including payment of medical benefits for care provided to injured workers by health care providers who have filed petitions for reimbursement dispute resolution under chapter 69L-31. Also, the Summit Companies have a workers’ compensation managed care arrangement authorized by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) pursuant to section 440.134. Their delegated managed care entity, Heritage Summit HealthCare, LLC, has its own proprietary PPO network. The Summit Companies, either corporately or through their delegated managed care entity, regularly authorize, adjust, and pay medical benefits for injured workers for causally- related and medically necessary treatment, including payment for treatment rendered by physicians, hospitals, ASCs, pharmacies and prescription drug vendors, physical therapists, and other licensed health care providers, such as Petitioners. All parties stipulated that the challenged proposed rules directly and immediately affect the rights and obligations of the Summit Companies, and directly impact their financial obligations in medical bill payment, as well as in reimbursement disputes under section 440.13(7) and chapter 69L-31. The proposed rules dictate which processes will govern reimbursement disputes involving the Summit Companies, including whether the Summit Companies may rely on their managed care arrangements and contracts regulated under the authority of AHCA. To the same extent that all Intervenors are directly and immediately impacted by the challenged proposed rules, Petitioners Oak Hill, Parallon, and AHCS, as well as the members of Petitioner FSASC, are also directly and immediately impacted by the proposed challenged rules, which govern reimbursement disputes under section 440.13(7). Just as the challenged proposed rules directly and immediately impact Intervenors’ financial obligations in medical bill payment to providers, such as Petitioners, the challenged proposed rules also directly and immediately impact Petitioners’ financial rights in having medical bills paid by carriers, such as Intervenors. The challenged proposed rules dictate what processes will be available in reimbursement disputes, not only for Intervenors, but for Petitioners. The challenged proposed rules dictate when the cost-efficient reimbursement dispute process will be, and will not be, fully available to Petitioners and FSASC’s members, and when the prompt delivery of payment envisioned as the end result of the reimbursement dispute process will, or will not be, available to them. The parties also stipulated that the Division’s challenged proposed rules immediately and substantially affect Intervenors because prior authorization, the managed care defense, provider contract disputes, and medical necessity all have been raised as issues in prior chapter 69L-31 provider disputes with these carriers. It stands to reason that the providers who are on the other side of these disputes with carriers are just as immediately and substantially impacted by the proposed rules in this regard. Reason aside, Respondent readily stipulated to the direct, immediate, and substantial impacts to Intervenors, but steadfastly disputed that Petitioners (or the members of Petitioner FSASC) must necessarily be impacted to the same degree. Yet they are, after all, the other side of the reimbursement dispute coin. It is difficult to understand how one side of a dispute could be directly, immediately, and substantially impacted by proposed rules regulating the dispute process, while the other side of the dispute would not be equally impacted. At hearing, the undersigned raised this seeming incongruity, and suggested that Respondent would need to explain its different positions with regard to the factual predicates for standing for Intervenors and for Petitioners, besides the obvious difference that Intervenors were supporting Respondent’s proposed rules while Petitioners were challenging them. Respondent offered no explanation for its incongruous positions, either at hearing or in its PFO. Respondent’s agreement that Intervenors are immediately, directly, and substantially affected by the challenged proposed rules serves as an admission that Petitioners (or Petitioner FSASC’s members) are also immediately, directly, and substantially affected by the challenged proposed rules. Specific examples were offered in evidence of the Division’s refusal to resolve reimbursement disputes because contracts and managed care arrangements were involved, or because payment was adjusted or disallowed due to compensability or medical necessity issues. FSASC provided a concrete example of the application of the unadopted policies to one of its members, resulting in immediate injury when the Division refused to resolve a reimbursement dispute because a contract was involved. Petitioner Oak Hill identified a single reimbursement dispute over a $49,000 underpayment that remained unresolved because of the Division’s refusal to resolve the dispute because either a contract or managed care arrangement was involved. Petitioner Parallon’s income is based, in part, on paid claims by carriers, so it loses income when these reimbursement disputes are not resolved and the carriers are not ordered to promptly pay an amount. Petitioner AHCS offered examples of reimbursement disputes that the Division refused to resolve because the carrier disallowed or adjusted payment due to compensability or medical necessity issues. AHCS also noted that the incidence of carrier disallowances and adjustments of payment for compensability and medical necessity reasons has increased since the Division stopped making determinations to resolve reimbursement disputes on those issues. At the very least, Petitioners have already been harmed in these ways: by the delay in resolving reimbursement disputes, which includes lost cash flow and the time value of the money that carriers are not ordered to pay; by the increased personnel costs necessary to try some other way to pursue these claims; and by the prospect of court filing fees and attorney’s fees to try to litigate their right to payment when deprived of the statutory mechanism for cost-efficient resolution of reimbursement disputes. Conceivably, providers will not have recourse in court to contest disallowance or adjustment of payment, given Respondent’s exclusive jurisdiction to decide any matters concerning reimbursement. § 440.13(11)(c), Fla. Stat. Meanwhile, carriers immediately benefit from delay, by not being ordered to promptly pay claims. In an annual report addressing reimbursement dispute determinations for the fiscal year from July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016, the Division reported that in 85.5 percent of its reimbursement dispute determinations, it determined that the health care providers had been underpaid. Overview of Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Dispute Process Under Florida’s statutory workers’ compensation system, injured workers report their injury to the employer and/or the carrier. With an exception for emergency care, a health care provider must receive authorization for treatment from the carrier prior to providing treatment. After providing treatment, health care providers, including hospitals and physicians, must submit their bills to employers’ carriers; they are prohibited from billing the injured employees who received the treatment. These bills typically have multiple line items, such as for pharmaceutical prescriptions, diagnostic tests, and other services rendered. Carriers are required to review all bills submitted by health care providers to identify overutilization and billing errors, and to determine whether the providers have complied with practice parameters and protocols of treatment established in accordance with chapter 440. § 440.13(6), Fla. Stat. Mr. Sabolic explained that the “protocols of treatment” are the standards of care in section 440.13(15). These include criteria for “[r]easonable necessary medical care of injured employees.” § 440.13(15)(c), Fla. Stat. The carrier review of provider bills must culminate in a determination of whether the bill reflects overutilization of medical services, whether there are billing errors, and whether the bill reflects any violations of the practice parameters and protocols of treatment (standards of care). If a carrier finds any of these to be the case, the carrier is required by statute to disallow or adjust payment accordingly. The carrier is expressly authorized to make this determination “without order of a judge of compensation claims or the department,” if the carrier makes its determination in compliance with section 440.13 and Department rules. § 440.13(6), Fla. Stat. The Department’s rules require carriers to communicate to providers the carriers’ decisions under section 440.13(6) to pay or to deny, disallow, or adjust payment, with reasons for their decisions, in an “explanation of bill review” (EOBR).5/ If a carrier contests or disputes certain line items on a medical bill, the EOBR must identify the line items disputed and the reasons for the dispute, using EOBR codes and code descriptor. The EOBR code list, with 98 codes and descriptors, is set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.740(13)(b). All but two of the codes describe reasons for disallowing or adjusting payment. EOBR Code 10 means payment denial of the entire bill, when the injury or illness is not compensable. EOBR Code 11 is used for partial denial of payment, where, although there is a compensable injury or illness, a diagnosis or procedure code for a particular line item service is determined by the carrier to be unrelated to the compensable condition. The EOBR coding rule provides that up to three codes can be assigned to each line item to “describe the basis for the claim administrator’s reimbursement decision in descending order of importance[.]” In addition, there is a “free-form” box in which additional notes of explanation may be given. The carrier’s determination to disallow or adjust payment of a health care provider’s bill, made pursuant to section 440.13(6), and explained to the health care provider by means of an EOBR, is the action that sets up a potential reimbursement dispute pursuant to section 440.13(7). “Any health care provider who elects to contest the disallowance or adjustment of payment by a carrier under subsection (6) must, within 45 days after receipt of notice of disallowance or adjustment of payment, petition the department to resolve the dispute.” § 440.13(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). The petition must be accompanied by “all documents and records that support the allegations in the petition.” Id. The carrier whose EOBR is disputed “must” then submit to the Department within 30 days of receipt of the petition all documentation substantiating the carrier’s disallowance or adjustment. § 440.13(7)(b), Fla. Stat. Section 440.13(7)(c) and (d) provide for the culmination of the reimbursement dispute process, as follows: Within 120 days after receipt of all documentation, the department must provide to the petitioner, the carrier, and the affected parties a written determination of whether the carrier properly adjusted or disallowed payment. The department must be guided by standards and policies set forth in this chapter, including all applicable reimbursement schedules, practice parameters, and protocols of treatment, in rendering its determination. If the department finds an improper disallowance or improper adjustment of payment by an insurer, the insurer shall reimburse the health care provider, facility, insurer, or employer within 30 days, subject to the penalties provided in this subsection. (emphasis added). Section 440.13(7)(e) provides that the Department “shall adopt rules to carry out this subsection,” i.e., the reimbursement dispute process. As noted, the Department did so in 2006, in promulgating chapter 69L-31. The rules were transferred from AHCA, which was the state agency vested with the statutory authority to determine reimbursement disputes between providers and carriers until the Department took over those functions in 2005.6/ Evolution of the Policies in the Challenged Proposed Rules Reimbursement Pursuant to a Provider-Carrier Contract or Managed Care Arrangement For approximately a decade, the Division accepted petitions to resolve reimbursement disputes when the reimbursement amount was determined by a contract between the provider and carrier. The Division resolved these disputes by issuing written determinations of whether the carrier properly adjusted or disallowed payment, and if the Division determined the carrier improperly adjusted or disallowed payment, the Division would specify the contract reimbursement amount that the carrier was required to pay within 30 days. That is because section 440.13(12) expressly recognizes that reimbursement to providers shall be either an amount set as the maximum reimbursement allowance (MRA) in fee schedules (or other amount set by a statutory formula), or the agreed-upon contract price.7/ Health care network reimbursement contracts typically do not (but may) include prices stated in dollar amounts. Instead, they frequently establish the price for reimbursement as a percentage of the MRA, or a percentage of allowable charges for services rendered. The Division’s reimbursement manuals in effect today, adopted as rules, recognize in a variety of contexts that the amount a provider is to be reimbursed is the contract amount, when there is a contract between the provider and carrier. The Workers’ Compensation Health Care Provider Reimbursement Manual currently in effect provides this introductory statement: Reimbursement will be made to a Florida health care provider after applying the appropriate reimbursement policies contained in this Manual. A carrier will reimburse a health care provider either the MRA in the appropriate reimbursement schedule or a mutually agreed upon contract price. (emphasis added). Florida Workers’ Compensation Health Care Provider Reimbursement Manual (2016 edition) at 15, adopted and incorporated by reference in rule 69L-7.020, effective July 1, 2017. The manual has dozens of references to reimbursing at the contract price, such as this example for reimbursement for multiple surgeries: Reimbursement for the primary surgical procedure will be the MRA listed in Chapter 3, Part B of this Manual or the agreed upon contract price. Reimbursement for additional surgical procedure(s) will be fifty percent (50%) of the listed MRA in Chapter 3, Part B of this Manual or the agreed upon contract price. * * * Note: If there is an agreed upon contract between the health care provider and the carrier, the contract establishes the reimbursement at a specified contract price. (emphasis added). Id. at 63. Similarly, the ASC reimbursement manual in effect has multiple references to reimbursement at the contract price or contract amount, such as this example for surgical services: For each billed CPT® code listed in Chapter 6 of this Manual, the ASC shall be reimbursed either: The MRA if listed in Chapter 6 of this Manual; or The agreed upon contract price. For each billed CPT® code not listed in Chapter 6 of this Manual, the ASC shall be reimbursed: Sixty percent (60%) of the ASC’s billed charge; or The agreed upon contract price. * * * Note: If there is an agreed upon contract between the ASC and the carrier, the contract establishes the reimbursement at the specified contract price. (emphasis added). Florida Workers’ Compensation Ambulatory Surgical Center Reimbursement Manual (2015 edition) at 17, incorporated by reference in rule 69L-7.020, effective January 1, 2016. See also ASC Manual App. A at 1 (surgical implant MRA is “50% above acquisition cost; amount certified or contract amount.”). The reimbursement manual for hospitals has similar references, including this directive for inpatient services: Except as otherwise provided in this Manual, 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. (emphasis added). Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals (2014 edition) at 15, adopted and incorporated by reference in rule 69L-7.501, effective January 1, 2015. In 2013, the Division submitted a legislative proposal for the Department to consider including in its proposed bill. The Division requested an amendment to section 440.13 to “[r]emove contracted reimbursement from [reimbursement dispute] resolution authority of [the] department.” Jt. Ex. 51 at 1. That proposal did not lead to a statutory change. An example of how the Division resolved reimbursement disputes involving contracts before its recent policy is shown in Exhibit FS1, a “Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute Determination.” According to the document, at issue was a reimbursement dispute regarding a bill for one service, for which the carrier issued an EOBR disallowing payment. The Division’s finding regarding reimbursement was that the contract at issue “provides for reimbursement at the lesser of 90% of billed charges or 90% of the fee schedule.” The Division calculated the contract price and determined that the “total correct reimbursement amount” per the contract was $2,334.60. The determination, issued June 30, 2015, was: The Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation has determined that the petitioner substantiated entitlement to additional reimbursement of disputed services based upon the documentation in evidence and in accordance with the provisions of the Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual [for ASCs], 2011 Edition, Chapter 3, page 26. The respondent shall remit the petitioner the amount of $2,334.60 and provide the Division proof of reimbursement to the petitioner within thirty (30) days of receipt of this notice[.] Ex. FS1 at 2. The evolution was a little different for reimbursement disputes involving workers’ compensation managed care arrangements. Rule 69L-31.015, adopted by the Department in 2006, provided as follows: A health care provider may not elect to contest under Section 440.13(7), F.S., disallowance or adjustment of payment by a carrier for services rendered pursuant to a managed care arrangement. Mr. Sabolic explained that while this rule was in effect, the Division would dismiss petitions that disclosed managed care arrangements. But the rule was repealed in response to a challenge to the rule’s validity. As Mr. Sabolic recalled it, the challenger was Parallon or an individual HCA-affiliated hospital. According to Mr. Sabolic, the Division agreed that it did not have the authority to simply dismiss petitions. The rule history note states that the rule repeal was effective May 22, 2014.8/ For the 15-month period from late May 2014 through late August 2015, the Division accepted reimbursement dispute petitions and resolved the reimbursement disputes, even though a workers’ compensation managed care arrangement was involved, just as it had been doing for years for reimbursement disputes involving contracts. On or about August 24, 2015, the Division changed its policy on issuing determinations when a contract (including a managed care arrangement) was alleged in the petition. In all determinations of reimbursement disputes issued after August 24, 2015, if a contract or managed care arrangement was alleged, the Division stopped making findings regarding the contracted-for reimbursement amount. Instead, the Division started reciting the fee schedule/MRA amount or applicable statutory formula amount, making no determination regarding whether the carrier properly adjusted or disallowed payment, or, if an improper adjustment or disallowance, how much the reimbursement should have been under the contract and how much the carrier was required to reimburse the provider within 30 days. The Division changed the name of the form it used from “Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute Determination” to just “Reimbursement Dispute Determination,” signaling that the Division would no longer be resolving reimbursement disputes involving contracts. Instead, the following language appeared in each such determination: The amount listed above does not apply to any contractual arrangement. If a contractual arrangement exists between the parties, reimbursement should be made pursuant to such contractual arrangement. Exhibit FS3 is an example showing a Division “determination” applying its new policy to a reimbursement dispute petition filed by an ASC member of FSASC. Part IV of the form, “Reimbursement Dispute Policies and Guidelines,” reflects (as did prior determinations) that the reimbursement manual for ASCs, adopted by rule, “sets the policies and reimbursement amounts for medical bills.” As previously noted, the reimbursement manuals set reimbursement amounts at either the MRA/statutory formula or the agreed-upon contract price, consistent with the policy in section 440.13(12)(a). Nonetheless, the Division added a note to the end of part IV: NOTE: This reimbursement determination is limited in scope to standards and policies set forth in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, including all applicable reimbursement schedules, practice parameters, and protocols of treatment. It does not interpret, apply or otherwise take into account any contractual arrangement between the parties governing reimbursement for services provided by health care providers, including any workers’ compensation managed care arrangement under section 440.134, Florida Statutes. Ex. FS3 at 2. Accordingly, even though the determination form reflects that the ASC petitioner met its filing requirements for a reimbursement dispute over a bill for services in the amount of $5,188.00, none of which was paid according to the EOBR, and even though the carrier failed to file a response to the petition, the Division did not make a determination that the carrier improperly disallowed payment or that the petitioner had substantiated entitlement to additional reimbursement in the amount of the agreed-upon contract price, as it had in previous determinations. Instead, the Division set forth the “correct reimbursement” amount that would apply if the MRA applied, while noting that amount would not apply if there was a contractual arrangement providing a different amount. The carrier was not ordered to remit any amount within 30 days. Reimbursement Disputes Involving Issues of Compensability or Medical Necessity Prior to November 2015, the Division resolved reimbursement disputes by determining the issues as framed by the carrier’s actions under section 440.13(6), to disallow or adjust payment of a bill or specific line items in a bill for reasons (codes) in the EOBR, which were contested by the provider in a timely-filed petition under section 440.13(7)(a). The EOBR code list contains one code (code 10) for denial of payment of an entire claim based on non-compensability of an injury or illness. One other code (code 11) is for partial denial of payment, where there is a compensable injury, but a specific line item indicates treatment unrelated to the compensable injury. Five additional codes (codes 21 through 26) apply to disallowed payments for various medical necessity reasons. Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-7.740(13)(b). Prior to November 2015, the Division resolved reimbursement disputes when the provider timely petitioned to contest the disallowance or adjustment of payment by a carrier, as set forth in the EOBR, including when the EOBR cited compensability and/or medical necessity code(s) as the reason(s) for disallowing or adjusting payment of a provider’s bill. On or about November 2, 2015, the Division changed its policy and no longer addressed in its reimbursement dispute determinations whether a carrier properly or improperly disallowed or adjusted payment for reasons of medical necessity or compensability. Exhibit AH6 is an example of a Division written determination that makes no determination of whether a carrier properly or improperly disallowed payment of a line item based on a medical necessity issue (EOBR Code 24). Instead, the “determination” included this note: Note: The Department will not address any disallowance or adjustment of payment where the basis for the disallowance or adjustment or payment by the carrier involves denial of compensability of the claim or assertion that the specific services provided are not medically necessary. Ex. AH6 at 2. This note has been included in all determinations issued after November 2015, where payment was disallowed or adjusted based on medical necessity or compensability. Rulemaking Process The Division began rule development to incorporate its policy changes in amendments to chapter 69L-31. A Notice of Development of Proposed Rules was published on December 16, 2015. The notice set forth the preliminary text of proposed amendments, including new proposed rule 69L-31.016, entitled “Reimbursement Disputes Involving a Contract or Workers’ Compensation Managed Care Arrangement.” The notice stated that the purpose and effect of proposed rule 69L-31.016 was “to limit the scope of dispute resolutions to compliance with standards under Chapter 440, F.S. and exclude issues of contract interpretation.” The exclusion of disallowed or adjusted payments based on issues of compensability and medical necessity, not mentioned in the statement of purpose and effect, was initially put in rule 69L-31.005, in a paragraph stating that the Department will only address specific EOBR line items where the carrier adjusted or disallowed payment and are disputed by the provider, but then stating that the Department will not address specific EOBR adjustment or disallowance items involving compensability or medical necessity, even if disputed. A rule development workshop was held on January 12, 2016. The Department published a second Notice of Development of Proposed Rules, revising the proposed changes to chapter 69L-31, including both the contract/managed care exclusion and the compensability/medical necessity exclusion. On June 10, 2016, the Division held a second rule development workshop addressing the proposed rule revisions. On December 7, 2016, the Division published a Notice of Proposed Rules, formally initiating rulemaking to revise chapter 69L-31. The notice set forth a revised proposed rule 69L-31.016. Its new title was “Reimbursement Disputes Involving a Contract or Workers’ Compensation Managed Care Arrangement or Involving Compensability or Medical Necessity,” joining in one rule all of the new exceptions, for which the Division would not be making determinations of whether carriers properly or improperly adjusted or disallowed payments. As proposed, the rule provided: When either the health care provider or carrier asserts that a contract between them establishes the amount of reimbursement to the health care provider, or where the carrier provided health care services to the injured worker through a workers’ compensation managed care arrangement pursuant to Section 440.134, F.S., the Department will not issue a finding that there has been any improper disallowance or adjustment. Instead, the determination will only indicate the reimbursement amount for the treatment established by the appropriate reimbursement schedules, practice parameters, and protocols of treatment under Chapter 440, F.S., to assist the health care provider and carrier in their independent application of the provisions of the contract or workers’ compensation managed care arrangement to resolve the dispute. When the carrier asserts the treatment is not compensable or medically necessary and as a result does not reimburse, the Department will not issue a finding that there has been any improper disallowance or adjustment. Instead, the determination will only indicate the reimbursement amount for the treatment established by the appropriate reimbursement schedules, practice parameters, and protocols of treatment under Chapter 440, F.S., should compensability or medical necessity be later established. The stated purpose of proposed rule 69L-31.016 was to specify “that the scope of Department determinations involving reimbursement disputes is limited to findings relating to reimbursement schedules, practice parameters, and protocols of treatment, and [to clarify] that the Department will issue no findings regarding an improper disallowance or adjustment in reimbursement involving managed care contracts or when the carrier asserts that medical treatment was either not compensable or not medically necessary[.]” Jt. Ex. 3. As published in December 2016, proposed rule 69L- 31.016 cited sections 440.13(7)(e) and 440.591 as the “rulemaking authority,” and sections 440.13(7) and (12)(a) and 440.134(15) as the “laws implemented.” The Division’s notice stated that, based on its determinations as to adverse impact and regulatory costs: “A SERC has not been prepared by the Agency.” Jt. Ex. 3. By letter dated December 28, 2016, Parallon proposed a LCRA to the proposed rule 69L-31.016(1) (and to other proposed rules not at issue in this proceeding). The LCRA explained that Parallon was already experiencing increased costs because of the Division’s unadopted policy, and Parallon proposed that the most appropriate lower cost alternative to accomplish the statutory objectives was not to adopt proposed rule 69L-31.016(1). On January 5, 2017, the Division held a public hearing on the proposed rules. Petitioners (through counsel) offered comments in opposition to the proposed rules. Parallon’s counsel also submitted the LCRA letter into the record. On May 2, 2017, the Division published a Notice of Correction. The notice stated that, contrary to the statement in the Notice of Proposed Rules, SERCs had been prepared for the proposed rules, and that the SERC for proposed rule 69L-31.016 now had been revised to address the LCRA. The impression given by the various documents identified as a SERC or revised SERC, half of which are entitled “Department of Financial Services Analysis to Determine if a [SERC] is Required,” all of which are similar or identical in content, and none of which bear a date, is that, prior to the LCRA, Respondent did not prepare a SERC for proposed rule 69L- 31.016; it prepared a document by which it determined that no SERC was required. After the LCRA was filed, Respondent added a reference to the LCRA, but otherwise did not change the content of its non-SERC. In the Notice of Correction, the Division stated: “The [SERC] for each of the above-referenced proposed rules is available by accessing the Department’s website at http://www.myfloridacfo.com/Division/WC/noticesRules.htm.” The document titled “Department of Financial Services Analysis to Determine if Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs Is Required,” referred to by the Division as the SERC, was not available on the DFS website on May 2, 2017, as the Notice of Correction indicated. Instead, it was available at the referenced website location on or after May 3, 2017. Upon request by counsel for Parallon on May 3, 2017, the document referred to as a SERC was also provided to Parallon. Mr. Sabolic testified that the document referred to as the SERC was actually available at the Division on May 2, 2017, and would have been made available to someone if it was requested on that day. However, the noticed means by which the document would be “made available” was at a specific website location that was not functional until May 3, 2017. The so-called SERC document for proposed rule 69L- 31.016 suffers from several obvious deficiencies. As to the Division’s “economic analysis,” the document states: “N/A.” That is because the Division did no economic analysis.9/ In response to two separate prompts, for the Division to set forth a “good faith estimate of the number of individuals and entities likely to be required to comply with the rule,” and separately, to give a “general description of the types of individuals likely to be affected by the rule,” the Division gave the identical response: “This Rule changes how the Medical Services Section review Petitions for Resolution of Reimbursement Disputes. Only the Medical Services Section will be required to comply.” In addition, the document indicates (with no explanation or analysis) that there will be no transactional costs to persons required to comply with the new rule, and no adverse impact at all on small businesses. In contrast to the so-called SERC document indicating that only the medical services section will be required to comply with, or be impacted by, the proposed rule, in the Division’s 2013 legislative proposal seeking to remove its statutory authority to determine reimbursement disputes involving contracts, the Division was able to identify persons who would be affected by the proposal, acknowledging as follows: “Workers’ compensation carriers, including self- insurers (DFS Div. of Risk Mgmt), third party administrators, and health care providers, including facilities, are affected.” And, of course, the Division was well aware by May 2017 of the variety of providers and carriers expressing their interests and concerns during the rule development that had been ongoing for 17 months by then. To say that the Division gave the SERC task short shrift would be generous. The Division did not take this task seriously. The so-called SERC document also identified the Parallon LCRA. In response to the requirement to describe the LCRA and provide either a statement adopting it or a statement “of the reasons for rejecting the alternative in favor of the proposed rule,” the Division stated: Parallon’s lower cost regulatory alternative consisted of a cost-based argument against the adoption of the proposed rule on the basis that the existing rule provides a lower cost alternative. The Division rejected the regulatory alternative and intends to move forward with adoption on the proposed rule, but will revise the proposed rule to read as follows[.] Jt. Ex. 12, at bates-stamp p. 48. The reference to a revision to the proposed rule does not belong in the statement of reasons for rejecting the LCRA. Its placement there was misleading, as if the revision to the proposed rule helped to explain why the Division rejected the LCRA. But no revision was made to the rule to which the LCRA was directed--proposed rule 69L-31.016(1). The revision was to proposed rule 69L- 31.016(2), not addressed by the LCRA. At hearing, Mr. Sabolic attempted to provide the statement of reasons for rejecting the LCRA, missing in the so- called SERC document. He said that the cost-based argument was considered speculative and lacked data (but that explanation was not in the so-called SERC document). Although he thought that the SERC document stated that the LCRA was rejected because it was based on a “faulty” cost-based argument, the word “faulty” was not in the SERC. On its face, the SERC offers no reason why the “cost-based argument” was rejected— just that it was rejected. The amendment to proposed rule 69L-31.016(2) mentioned in the SERC document was also published on May 2, 2017, in a Notice of Change. The change was shown as follows: When the carrier asserts the treatment is not compensable or medically necessary and as a result does not reimburse, the Department will not issue a finding that there has been any improper disallowance or adjustment. Instead, the determination will only address line items not related to indicate the reimbursement amount for the treatment established by the appropriate reimbursement schedules, practice parameters, and protocols of treatment under Chapter 440, F.S., should compensability or medical necessity be later established. If the petitioner has submitted documentation demonstrating the carrier authorized the treatment, the Department will issue a finding of improper disallowance or adjustment. The Notice of Change did not change either of the other challenged provisions—proposed rule 69L-31.016(1) and the proposed deletion of rule 69L-31.005(2)(d). The Notice of Change deleted the prior citation to section 440.13(12)(a) as one of the laws implemented by proposed rule 69L-31.016, leaving only sections 440.13(7) and 440.134(15) as the laws implemented. Division’s Justifications for the Challenged Proposed Rules Mr. Sabolic was Respondent’s hearing representative and sole witness to explain and support the challenged rules. Mr. Sabolic testified that when a contract dictates the reimbursement amount, the Division does not believe it has statutory authority to interpret or enforce contract terms. Yet he acknowledged that the Division’s reimbursement determinations were required to be based on policies set forth in chapter 440, and that the Division was required to apply its reimbursement manuals that are promulgated as rules. Both chapter 440 and the reimbursement manuals expressly require reimbursement at the agreed-upon contract price, as detailed above. The Division recognized this for a decade, during which it applied chapter 440 and its reimbursement manuals to determine the agreed-upon contract price, resolve reimbursement disputes, and order carriers to pay the amount required by their contracts. The Division’s rationale stands in stark contrast to the Division’s 2013 request for a legislative amendment to remove its statutory authority to determine reimbursement disputes when reimbursement is dictated by contracts. The Division’s request constitutes an admission that it believes it has the statutory authority it now says it lacks. Apart from statutory authority, Mr. Sabolic indicated that in the decade during which the Division did resolve reimbursement disputes involving contracts, it was sometimes difficult to determine whether there was a contract in effect between the parties. There was a variety of contracts, and sometimes they were complex. With regard to managed care arrangements, Mr. Sabolic said that, similar to contracts, the Division does not think it has the power to interpret or enforce managed care arrangements, because that power lies within AHCA under section 440.134. He said that section 440.134(15) was cited as a law implemented by proposed rule 69L-31.016 because the statute addresses grievance or complaint procedures under a managed care arrangement. Intervenors Summit Companies attempted to prove that providers are required to resolve reimbursement disputes involving workers’ compensation managed care arrangements by using the grievance process described in section 440.134(15). The evidence failed to support that contention. The evidence showed that the grievance form used by the Summit Companies’ managed care arrangement, approved by AHCA, describes the grievance process as encompassing “dissatisfaction with medical care issues provided by or on behalf of a workers’ compensation managed care arrangement.” Tr. 323. As confirmed by the definitions of “complaint” and “grievance” in the workers’ compensation managed care law, the grievance process is used to resolve an injured worker’s dissatisfaction with an insurer’s managed care arrangement, including a refusal to provide medical care or the care provided. See § 440.134(1)(b) and (d), Fla. Stat. Although under AHCA’s rules and the Summit Companies’ form, providers may initiate the grievance process, they would be doing so essentially on behalf of the injured worker or in tandem with the injured worker to resolve the injured worker’s dissatisfaction with medical care issues. When the issue is the insurer’s refusal to provide medical care, the grievance process is an administrative remedy for the injured worker that has to be exhausted before an injured worker can file a petition for benefits pursuant to section 440.192. Not surprisingly, providers have not attempted to file grievances to raise reimbursement disputes with insurers, as nothing in section 440.134(15), the rules, or the Summit Companies’ approved form contemplate use of the process for that purpose, much less mandate it. Strangely, Mr. Sabolic attempted to justify the proposed rule’s carve-outs from the reimbursement dispute process by reference to section 440.13(11)(c), which gives the Department “exclusive jurisdiction to decide any matters concerning reimbursement[.]” As he put it: I think that the statute indicates we can decide any matter relating to reimbursement under 440.13(11)(c), and that’s how we’re deciding to deal with those situations when a managed care arrangement or a contract is involved. That’s our decision. Our decision is that that determination’s going to reflect the amount that is in the applicable reimbursement manual for that service date. Tr. 232. It must be noted that section 440.13(11)(c) was not cited as one of the laws implemented by the proposed rules, even if the premise could be accepted that a grant of exclusive jurisdiction to decide any matter concerning reimbursement includes authority to decide never to decide certain matters concerning reimbursement. Mr. Sabolic admitted that under proposed rule 69L-31.016(1), the Division does not and will not issue a written determination of whether the carrier properly adjusted or disallowed payment when a contract or managed care arrangement is involved. Mr. Sabolic testified that the proposed deletion of rule 69L-31.005(2)(d) (requiring a copy of the contract or managed care arrangement addressing reimbursement) is tied to proposed rule 69L-31.016(1) that gets the Division out of the business of looking at contracts. The Division will not require any proof that a contract or managed care arrangement governs reimbursement so as to trigger the no-decision decision. Instead, if either a provider indicates in its petition or a carrier indicates in its response that reimbursement is pursuant to a contract or managed care arrangement, that ends the inquiry, and the Division will not determine whether the carrier properly adjusted or disallowed payment. Mr. Sabolic said that he was not concerned with the potential for abuse, because in the decade when the Division was in the business of interpreting and applying reimbursement provisions in contracts, it was very rare that the parties disagreed on whether a contract was in effect between them that governed reimbursement. Mr. Sabolic offered no justification for carving out from reimbursement disputes carrier adjustments or disallowances of payment based on compensability or medical necessity issues. He just reported the Division’s decision that if a carrier disallows or adjusts payment for line items on bills and cites reasons (EOBR codes) involving compensability or medical necessity, “we will indicate that we’re not going to issue a determination on those line items and [we will] only issue a determination on those line items which don’t reflect the carrier’s disallowance related to compensability or medical necessity.” But if the petitioner gives “proof that the carrier authorized treatment,” the Division “will proceed with rendering a determination related to those line items.” Tr. 197. The Division’s determinations under proposed rules 69L-31.016(1) (when a contract or managed care arrangement is alleged) and 69L-31.016(2) (when payment is disallowed or adjusted for compensability or medical necessity reasons) are characterized by the Division as “neutral determinations” in which there is no winner and no loser. A more fitting characterization is “non-determination.”
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.
