The Issue Does Petitioner, AHF MCO of Florida, Inc., d/b/a PHC Florida HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan (Positive), have standing to contest the intended award to Simply for Regions 10 and 11 or to seek rejection of all proposals? (Case No. 18-3507 and 18-3508) Should the intended decision of Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), to contract with Simply Healthcare Plans, Inc. (Simply), for Medicaid managed care plans for HIV/AIDS patients in Regions 10 (Broward County) and Region 11 (Miami-Dade and Collier Counties) be invalidated and all proposals rejected? (Case Nos. 18-3507 and 18-3508) Must the Agency negotiate with Petitioner, South Florida Community Care Network, LLC, d/b/a Community Care Plan (Community), about a plan to provide HIV/AIDS Medicaid managed care services in Region 10 because it was the only responsive proposer of services that was a Provider Service Network (PSN)? (Case No. 18-3512) Must the Agency negotiate with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services in Region 10 for people with Serious Mental Illnesses because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3511) Must the Agency contract with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services for Children with Special Needs in Region 10 because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3513) Must the Agency negotiate with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services for Child Welfare patients in Region 10 because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3514)
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES Agency: Section 20.42, Florida Statutes, establishes the Agency as Florida’s chief health policy and planning agency. The Agency is the single state agency authorized to select eligible plans to participate in the Medicaid program. Positive: Positive is a Florida not-for-profit corporation operating a Medicaid health plan dedicated to serving people with HIV/AIDS. Positive serves about 2,000 patients in Florida. Positive’s health plan is accredited by the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Healthcare. Its disease management program is accredited by the National Committee for Quality Assurance. Currently, the Agency contracts with Positive for a SMMC HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan serving Regions 10 and 11. Simply: Simply is a Florida for-profit corporation operating a Medicaid health plan dedicated to serving people with HIV/AIDS. Currently, the Agency contracts with Simply to provide a SMMC HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan for Regions 1 through 3 and 5 through 11. Simply has maintained the largest patient enrollment of all HIV/AIDs plans in Florida since Florida started its statewide Medicaid managed care program. Community Care: Community is a Florida limited liability company. It is a PSN as defined in sections 409.912(1)(b) and 409.962(14), Florida Statutes. Staywell: Staywell is the fictitious name for WellCare of Florida, Inc., serving Florida’s Medicaid population. Sunshine: Sunshine State Health Plan (Sunshine) is a Florida corporation. It offers managed care plans to Florida Medicaid recipients. THE INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE TIMELINE On July 14, 2017, the Agency released 11 ITNs plans for Florida’s Medicaid managed care program in 11 statutorily defined regions. Region 10, Broward County, and Region 11, Miami-Dade and Collier Counties, are the regions relevant to this proceeding. Part IV of chapter 409, creates a statewide, integrated managed care program for Medicaid services. This program called Statewide Medicaid Managed Care includes two programs, Managed Medical Assistance and Long-term Care. Section 409.966(2), directs the Agency to conduct separate and simultaneous procurements to select eligible plans for each region using the ITN procurement process created by section 287.057(1)(c). The ITNs released July 14, 2017, fulfilled that command. The Agency issued 11 identical ITNs of 624 pages, one for each region, in omnibus form. They provided elements for four types of plans. Some elements were common to all types. Others were restricted to a specific plan type defined by intended patient population. The plan types are comprehensive plans, long-term care plus plans, managed medical assistance plans, and specialty plans. Section 409.962(16) defines “Specialty Plan” as a “managed care plan that serves Medicaid recipients who meet specified criteria based on age, medical condition, or diagnosis.” Responding vendors identified the plan type or types that they were proposing. The Agency issued Addendum No. 1 to the ITNs on September 14, 2017. On October 2, 2017, the Agency issued Addendum No. 2 to the ITNs. Addendum 2 included 628 questions about the ITNs and the Agency’s responses to the questions. Florida law permits potential responders to an ITN to challenge the specifications of an ITN, including the addendums. § 120.57(3)(b), Fla. Stat. Nobody challenged the specifications of the ITNs. As contemplated by section 287.057(c)(2), the Agency conducted “a conference or written question and answer period for purposes of assuring the vendors’ full understanding of the solicitation requirements.” Positive, Community, and Simply, along with United Healthcare of Florida, Inc., HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan (United), submitted responses to the ITN in Region 10 proposing HIV/AIDS Specialty Plans. Community was the only PSN to propose an HIV/AIDS plan for Region 10. Positive, Simply, and United submitted replies to the ITN for Region 11, proposing HIV/AIDS Specialty Plans. Community, United, Staywell, and one other provider submitted proposals to provide SMI Specialty Plan services in Region 10. Community was the only responding PSN. Community, Sunshine, and Staywell submitted proposals to provide Child Welfare Specialty Plans (CW) in Region 10. Community was the only PSN. Community, Staywell, and two others submitted proposals to offer Specialty Plans for Children with Special Needs (CSN) in Region 10. Community was one of two responding PSNs. Proposal scoring began November 6, 2017, and ended January 16, 2018. The Agency announced its intended awards on April 24, 2018. On April 24, 2018, the Agency issued its notices of intent to award specialty contracts in Regions 10 and 11. The following charts summarize the Agency’s ranking of the proposals and its intended awards. The two highest ranked plans, which the Agency selected for negotiations, are identified in bold. Region 10 – Children with Special Needs Respondent Intended Award Ranking Staywell No 1 Community No 2 Miami Children’s Health Plan, LLC No 3 Our Children PSN of Florida, LLC No 4 Region 10 – Child Welfare Respondent Intended Award Ranking Staywell No 1 Sunshine Yes 2 Molina Healthcare of Florida, Inc. No 3 Community No 4 Region 10 – HIV/AIDS Respondent Intended Award Ranking Simply Yes 1 United No 2 Community No 3 Positive No 4 Region 10 – Serious Mental Illness Respondent Intended Award Ranking Staywell Yes 1 United No 2 Florida MHS, Inc. No 3 Community No 4 Region 11 – HIV/AIDS Respondent Intended Award Ranking Simply Yes 1 United No 2 Positive No 3 All of the Specialty Plan awards noticed by the Agency went to bidders who also proposed, and received, comprehensive plan awards. The protests, referrals, and proceedings before the Division summarized in the Preliminary Statement followed the Agency’s announcement of its intended awards. TERMS The voluminous ITN consisted of a two-page transmittal letter and three Attachments (A, B, and C), with a total of 34 exhibits to them. They are: Attachment A, Exhibits A-1 through A-8, Attachment B, Exhibits B-1 through B-3, and Attachment C, Exhibits C-1 through C-8. The ITN establishes a two-step process for selecting: an evaluation phase and a negotiation phase. In the evaluation phase, each respondent was required to submit a proposal responding to criteria of the ITN. Proposals were to be evaluated, scored, and ranked. The goal of the evaluation phase was to determine which respondents would move to negotiations, not which would be awarded a contract. The top two ranking Specialty Plans per specialty population would be invited to negotiations. In the negotiation phase, the Agency would negotiate with each invited respondent. After that, the Agency would announce its intended award of a contract to the plan or plans that the Agency determined would provide the best value. Together, the attachments and exhibits combined instructions, criteria, forms, certifications, and data into a “one size fits all” document that described the information required for four categories of managed care plans to serve Medicaid patients. The ITN also provided data to consider in preparing responses. The transmittal letter emphasized, “Your response must comply fully with the instructions that stipulate what is to be included in the response.” The ITNs identified Jennifer Barrett as the procurement officer and sole point of contact with the Agency for vendors. The transmittal letter is reproduced here. This solicitation is being issued by the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, hereinafter referred to as “AHCA” or “Agency”, to select a vendor to provide Statewide Medicaid Managed Care Program services. The solicitation package consists of this transmittal letter and the following attachments and exhibits: Attachment A Instructions and Special ConditionsExhibit A-1 Questions TemplateExhibit A-2-a Qualification of Plan Eligibility Exhibit A-2-b Provider Service Network Certification of Ownership and Controlling InterestExhibit A-2-c Additional Required Certifications and StatementsExhibit A-3-a Milliman Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan Exhibit A-3-b Milliman Employee Organizational Conflict of Interest AffidavitExhibit A-4 Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria InstructionsExhibit A-4-a General Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria Exhibit A-4-a-1 SRC# 6 - General Performance Measurement ToolExhibit A-4-a-2 SRC# 9 - Expanded Benefits Tool (Regional) Exhibit A-4-a-3 SRC# 10 - Additional Expanded Benefits Template (Regional)Exhibit A-4-a-4 SRC# 14 - Standard CAHPS Measurement Tool Exhibit A-4-b MMA Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria Exhibit A-4-b-1 MMA SRC# 6 - Provider Network Agreements/Contracts (Regional)Exhibit A-4-b-2 MMA SRC# 14 - MMA Performance Measurement Tool Exhibit A-4-b-3 MMA SRC# 21 - Provider Network Agreements/Contracts Statewide Essential Providers Exhibit A-4-c LTC Submission Requirements and Evaluation CriteriaExhibit A-4-c-1 LTC SRC# 4 - Provider Network Agreements/Contracts (Regional) Exhibit A-4-d Specialty Submission Requirements and Evaluation CriteriaExhibit A-5 Summary of Respondent CommitmentsExhibit A-6 Summary of Managed Care Savings Exhibit A-7 Certification of Drug-Free Workplace ProgramExhibit A-8 Standard Contract Attachment B Scope of Service - Core Provisions Exhibit B-1 Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) ProgramExhibit B-2 Long-Term Care (LTC) ProgramExhibit B-3 Specialty Plan Attachment C Cost Proposal Instructions and Rate Methodology NarrativeExhibit C-1 Capitated Plan Cost Proposal TemplateExhibit C-2 FFS PSN Cost Proposal Template Exhibit C-3 Preliminary Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Program Rate Cell Factors Exhibit C-4 Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Program Expanded Benefit Adjustment Factors Exhibit C-5 Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Program IBNR Adjustment Factors Exhibit C-6 Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Program Historical Capitated Plan Provider Contracting Levels During SFY 15/16 Time Period Exhibit C-7 Statewide Medicaid Managed Care Data BookExhibit C-8 Statewide Medicaid Managed Care Data Book Questions and Answers Your response must comply fully with the instructions that stipulate what is to be included in the response. Respondents submitting a response to this solicitation shall identify the solicitation number, date and time of opening on the envelope transmitting their response. This information is used only to put the Agency mailroom on notice that the package received is a response to an Agency solicitation and therefore should not be opened, but delivered directly to the Procurement Officer. The ITN describes the plans as follows: Comprehensive Long-term Care Plan (herein referred to as a “Comprehensive Plan”) – A Managed Care Plan that is eligible to provide Managed Medical Assistance services and Long-term Care services to eligible recipients. Long-term Care Plus Plan – A Managed Care Plan that is eligible to provide Managed Medical Assistance services and Long-term Care services to eligible recipients enrolled in the Long-term Care program. This plan type is not eligible to provide services to recipients who are only eligible for MMA services. Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Plan – A Managed Care Plan that is eligible to provide Managed Medical Assistance services to eligible recipients. This plan type is not eligible to provide services to recipients who are eligible for Long-term Care services. Specialty Plan – A Managed Care Plan that is eligible to provide Managed Medical Assistance services to eligible recipients who are defined as a specialty population in the resulting Contract. Specialty Plans are at issue. The ITN did not define, describe, or specify specialty populations to be served. It left that to the responding vendors. Beyond that, the ITN left the ultimate definition of the specialty population for negotiation, saying in Section II(B)(1)(a) of Attachment B, Exhibit B-3, “[t]he Agency shall identify the specialty population eligible for enrollment in the Specialty Plan based on eligibility criteria based upon negotiations.” Some respondents directly identified the specialty population. Simply’s transmittal letter stated that it proposed “a Specialty plan for individuals with HIV/AIDS.” Positive’s response to Exhibit A-4-d Specialty SRC 4, eligibility and enrollment, stated, “the specialty population for the PHC [Positive] plan will be Medicaid eligible, male and female individuals from all age groups who are HIV positive with or without symptoms and those individuals who have progressed in their HIV disease to meet the CDC definition of AIDS.” Some others left definition of the specialty population to be inferred from the ITN response. The result is that the ITN left definition of the specialty populations initially to the respondents and ultimately to negotiations between the Agency and successful respondents. Petitioners and Intervenors describe the populations that they propose serving as HIV/AIDS patients, patients with SMI, CSN, and child welfare populations. ITN respondents could have proposed serving only cancer patients, serving only obstetric patients, or serving only patients with hemophilia. The part of the ITN requiring a respondent to identify the plan type for which it was responding offered only four alternative blocks to check. They were: “Comprehensive Plan,” Long-Term Care Plus Plan,” “Managed Medical Assistance Plan,” or “Specialty Plan.” Attachment A to the ITN, labeled “Instructions and Special Conditions,” provides an overview of the solicitation process; instructions for response preparation and content; information regarding response submission requirements; information regarding response evaluation, negotiations, and contract awards; and information regarding contract implementation. Exhibits A-1 to A-3 and A-5 to A-7 of the ITN contain various certifications and attestations that respondents had to prepare and verify. Exhibit A-4 contains submission requirement components (SRCs) to which respondents had to prepare written responses. Exhibit A-8 contains the state’s standard SMMC contract. ITN Exhibit A-4-a contains 36 general submission requirements and evaluation criteria (General SRCs). ITN Exhibit A-4-b contains 21 MMA submission requirements and evaluation criteria (MMA SRCs). ITN Exhibit A-4-c contains 13 LTC submission requirements and evaluation criteria (LTC SRCs). ITN Exhibit A-4-d contains five specialty submission requirements and evaluation criteria (Specialty SRCs). The responses that the 36 SRCs require vary greatly. Some are as simple as providing documents or listing items. Others require completing tables or spreadsheets with data. Consequently, responses to some SRCS apparently could be reviewed in very little time, even a minute or less. Others requiring narrative responses might take longer. Examples follow. General SRC 1 required a list of the respondent’s contracts for managed care services and 12 information items about them including things such as whether they were capitated, a narrative describing the scope of work; the number of enrollees; and accomplishments and achievement. General SRC 2 asked for documentation of experience operating a Medicaid health plan in Florida. General SRC 3 asked for information confirming the location of facilities and employees in Florida. General SRC 12 requested a flowchart and written description of how the respondent would execute its grievance and appeal system. It listed six evaluation criteria. MMA SRC 2 asks for a description of the respondent’s organizational commitment to quality improvement “as it relates to pregnancy and birth outcomes.” It lists seven evaluation criteria. MMA SRC 10 asks for a description of the respondent’s plan for transition of care between service settings. It lists six evaluation criteria including the respondent’s process for collaboration with providers. Specialty SRC 1 asks for detailed information about respondent’s managed care experience with the specialty population. Specialty SRC 5 asks for detailed information about the respondent’s provider network standards and provides five evaluation criteria for evaluating the answers. Exhibit A-8 of the ITN contains the standard SMMC contract. Attachment B and Exhibits B-1 to B-3 of the ITN contain information about the scope of service and core provisions for plans under the SMMC program. Attachment C and Exhibits C-1 to C-8 of the ITN contain information related to the cost proposals and rate methodologies for plans under the SMMC program. The ITN permitted potential respondents to submit written questions about the solicitation to the Agency by August 14, 2017. Some did. On September 14, 2017, the Agency issued Addendum No. 1 to the ITN. Among other things, Addendum No. 1 changed the anticipated date for the Agency’s responses to respondents’ written questions from September 15 to October 2, 2017. The Agency issued Addendum No. 2 to the ITN on October 2, 2017. Addendum No. 2 included a chart with 628 written questions from potential respondents and the Agency’s answers. Attachment A at A 10-(d) makes it clear that the answers are part of the addendum. Both Addendums to the ITN cautioned that any protest of the terms, conditions, or specifications of the Addendums to the ITN had to be filed with the Agency within 72 hours of their posting. No respondent protested. Instructions for the A-4 Exhibits included these requirements: Each SRC contains form fields. Population of the form fields with text will allow the form field to expand and cross pages. There is no character limit. All SRCs, marked as “(Statewide)” must be identical for each region in which the respondent submits a reply. For timeliness of response evaluation, the Agency will evaluate each “(Statewide)” SRC once and transfer the score to each applicable region’s evaluation score sheet(s). The SRCs marked as “(Regional)” will be specific and only apply to the region identified in the solicitation and the evaluation score will not be transferred to any other region. The instructions continue: Agency evaluators will be instructed to evaluate the responses based on the narrative contained in the SRC form fields and the associated attachment(s), if applicable. Each response will be independently evaluated and awarded points based on the criteria and points scale using the Standard Evaluation Criteria Scale below unless otherwise identified in each SRC contained within Exhibit A-4. This is the scale: STANDARD EVALUATION CRITERIA SCALE Point Score Evaluation 0 The component was not addressed. 1 The component contained significant deficiencies. 2 The component is below average. 3 The component is average. 4 The component is above average. 5 The component is excellent. The ITN further explained that different SRCs would be worth different “weights,” based on the subject matter of the SRC and on whether they were General, MMA, LTC, or Specialty SRCs. It assigned weights by establishing different “weight factors” applied as multipliers to the score a respondent received on a criteria. For example, “Respondent Background/Experience” could generate a raw score of 90. Application of a weight factor of three made 270 the maximum possible score for this criteria. “Oversight and Accountability” could generate a raw score of 275. A weight factor of one, however, made the maximum score available 275. General SRC 6 solicits HEDIS data. HEDIS is a tool that consists of 92 measures across six domains of care that make it possible to compare the performance of health plans on an “apples-to-apples” basis. SRC 6 states: The respondent shall describe its experience in achieving quality standards with populations similar to the target population described in this solicitation. The respondent shall include, in table format, the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible), the respondent’s results for the HEDIS measures specified below for each of the last two (2) years (CY 2015/ HEDIS 2016 and CY 2016/ HEDIS 2017) for the respondent’s three (3) largest Medicaid Contracts (measured by number of enrollees). If the respondent does not have HEDIS results for at least three (3) Medicaid Contracts, the respondent shall provide commercial HEDIS measures for the respondent’s largest Contracts. If the Respondent has Florida Medicaid HEDIS results, it shall include the Florida Medicaid experience as one (1) of three (3) states for the last two (2) years. The respondent shall provide the data requested in Exhibit A-4-a-1, General Performance Measurement Tool[.] x x x Score: This section is worth a maximum of 160 raw points x x x For each of the measure rates, a total of 10 points is available per state reported (for a total of 360 points available). The respondent will be awarded 2 points if their reported plan rate exceeded the national Medicaid mean and 2 points if their reported plan rate exceeded the applicable regional Medicaid mean, for each available year, for each available state. The respondent will be awarded an additional 2 points for each measure rate where the second year’s rate is an improvement over the first year’s rate, for each available state. An aggregate score will be calculated and respondents will receive a final score of 0 through 150 corresponding to the number and percentage of points received out of the total available points. For example, if a respondent receives 100% of the available 360 points, the final score will be 150 points (100%). If a respondent receives 324 (90%) of the available 360 points, the final score will be 135 points (90%). If a respondent receives 36 (10%) of the available 360 points, the final score will be 15 points (10%). The SRC is plainly referring to the broad Medicaid- eligible population when it says “the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible).” “Dual eligible” populations are persons eligible for Medicaid and Medicare. There, as throughout the ITN, the ITN delineates between a target population of all Medicaid-eligible patients and a specialty population as described in a respondent’s ITN proposal. The clear instructions for SRC 6 require, “Use the drop-down box to select the state for which you are reporting and enter the performance measure rates (to the hundredths place, or XX.XX) for that state's Medicaid population for the appropriate calendar year.” Community did not comply. General SRC 14 solicits similar data, in similar form using a similar tool, about a respondent’s Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS). CAHPS data is basically a satisfaction survey. It asks respondents to provide “in table format the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible) and the respondent’s results for the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) items/composites specified below for the 2017 survey for its adult and child populations for the respondent’s three (3) largest Medicaid Contracts (as measured by number of enrollees).” Just like General SRC 6 did with HEDIS data, General SRC 14 ITN instructed bidders to put their CAHPS data for the “target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible)” “for the respondent’s three (3) largest Medicaid Contracts (measured by number of enrollees)” for multiple states into an excel spreadsheet “to the hundredths place[.]” Also, like General SRC 6, General SRC 14 includes an objective formula described in the ITN for scoring bidders’ CAHPS data. RANKING PROVISIONS Attachment A at (D)(4)(c)(2) stated: Each response will be individually scored by at least three (3) evaluators, who collectively have experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which contractual services are sought by this solicitation. The Agency reserves the right to have specific sections of the response evaluated by less than three (3) individuals. The ITN’s example of how total point scores would be calculated, discussed below, also indicated that some sections may be scored by less than three evaluators. The explanatory chart had a column for “[o]ther Sections evaluated by less than three (3) evaluators. ” The Agency’s policy, however, has been to assign at least three evaluators to score program specific SRCs. Attachment A at (D)(4)(e)(2) advised respondents how the agency will rank the competing responses. It was clear and specific, even providing an example of the process showing how the scores “will” be calculated. Step one of the explanatory chart stated that the Agency would calculate a total point score for each response. Step two stated that “[t]he total point scores will be used to rank the responses by an evaluator. . . .” Next, the rankings by the evaluator are averaged to determine the average rank for each respondent. This average ranking is critical because ranking is how the ITN said the Agency would select respondents for negotiation and how the Agency did select respondents for negotiation. The step two and step three charts, reproduced below, demonstrate that the ITN contemplated an evaluation process in which each response was to be evaluated in its entirety by three different evaluators, or maybe less than three, but indisputably in its entirety by those who evaluated it. This did not happen. Step 2 The total point scores will be used to rank the responses by evaluator (Response with the highest number of points = 1, second highest = 2, etc.). POINTS SUMMARY Evaluator A Evaluator B Evaluator C Evaluator D Respondent 446 Respondent 396 Respondent 311 Respondent 413 Respondent 425 Respondent 390 Respondent 443 Respondent 449 Respondent 397 Respondent 419 Respondent 389 Respondent 435 Respondent 410 Respondent 388 Respondent 459 Respondent 325 RANKING SUMMARY Evaluator A Evaluator B Evaluator C Evaluator D Respondent 1 1 Respondent 1 2 Respondent 1 4 Respondent 3 Respondent 2 2 Respondent 2 3 Respondent 2 2 Respondent 1 Respondent 3 4 Respondent 3 1 Respondent 3 3 Respondent 2 Respondent 4 3 Respondent 4 4 Respondent 4 1 Respondent 4 c) Step 3 An average rank will be calculated for each response for all the evaluators. Respondent 1 1+2+4+3=10÷4=2.5 Respondent 2 2+3+2+1=8÷4=2.0 Respondent 3 4+1+3+2=10÷4=2.5 Respondent 4 3+4+1+4=12÷4=3.0 PROVIDER SERVICE NETWORK PROVISIONS Florida law permits a PSN to limit services provided to a target population “based on age, chronic disease state, or medical condition of the enrollee.” This allows a PSN to offer a specialty plan. For each region, the eligible plan requirements of section 409.974(1) state, “At least one plan must be a provider service network if any provider service networks submit a responsive bid.” Section 409.974(3) says: “Participation by specialty plans shall be subject to the procurement requirements of this section. The aggregate enrollment of all specialty plans in a region may not exceed 10 percent of the total enrollees of that region.” The ITN addressed those requirements. The Negotiation Process section of Attachment A, Instructions and Special Conditions, says: The Agency intends to invite the following number of respondents to negotiation: Comprehensive Plans The top four (4) ranking Comprehensive Plans. Long-term Care Plus Plans The top two (2) ranking Long-term Care Plus Plans Managed Medical Assistance Plans The top two (2) ranking Managed Medical Assistance Plans Specialty Managed Medical Assistance Plans The top two (2) ranking Specialty Managed Medical Assistance Plans per specialty population. If there are no provider service networks included in the top ranked respondents listed above, the Agency will invite the highest ranked PSN(s) to negotiations in order to fulfill the requirements of Section 409.974(1), Florida Statutes and Section 409.981(1), Florida Statutes. Emphasis supplied. The ITN specifications in Section D.7, titled Number of Awards, state as follows about Specialty Plan awards: 7. Number of Awards In accordance with Sections 409.966, 409.974, and 409.981, Florida Statutes, the Agency intends to select a limited number of eligible Managed Care Plans to provide services under the SMMC program in Region 10. The Agency anticipates issuing the number of Contract awards for Region 10 as described in Table 5, SMMC Region, below, excluding awards to Specialty MMA Plans. Table 5 SMMC Region Region Total Anticipated Contract Awards Region 10 4 If a respondent is awarded a Contract for multiple regions, the Agency will issue one (1) Contract to include all awarded regions. The Agency will award at least one (1) Contract to a PSN provided a PSN submits a responsive reply and negotiates a rate acceptable to the Agency. The Agency, at its sole discretion, shall make this determination. A respondent that is awarded a Contract as a Comprehensive Plan is determined to satisfy the requirements in Section 409.974, Florida Statutes and Section 409.981, Florida Statutes and shall be considered an awardee of an MMA Contract and a LTC Contract. The Agency will issue one (1) Contract to reflect all awarded populations in all awarded regions. In addition to the number of Contracts awarded in this region, additional Contracts may be awarded to Specialty Plans that negotiate terms and conditions determined to be the best value to the State and negotiate a rate acceptable to the Agency. The Agency, at its sole discretion, shall make this determination. The Agency reserves the right to make adjustments to the enrollee eligibility and identification criteria proposed by a Specialty Plan prior to Contract award in order to ensure that the aggregate enrollment of all awarded Specialty Plans in a region will not exceed ten percent (10%) of the total enrollees in that region, in compliance with Section 409.974(3), Florida Statutes. If a respondent is awarded a Contract as a Specialty Plan and another plan type, the Agency will issue one (1) Contract to include all awarded populations in all awarded regions. A prospective vendor asked about the interplay of Specialty Plan options and the PSN requirements. The question and the answer provided in Addendum 2 follow: Q. Please clarify the number of PSN awards per region and how PSN awards will be determined based on the PSN's plan type (e.g., Comprehensive, LTC Plus, MMA, Specialty). As you know, Sections 409.974 and 409.981, Florida Statutes require one MMA PSN and one LTC PSN award per region (assuming a PSN is responsive) and the Agency has stated that an award to a Comprehensive Plan PSN will meet the requirements of both statutes. However, can the Agency further clarify whether other types of PSNs would meet the statutory requirements? Specifically, would a PSN LTC Plus award meet the requirements of Section 409.981, Florida Statutes? Similarly, would an award to a Specialty Plan PSN meet the requirements of Section 409.974, Florida Statutes? A. See Attachment A Instructions and Special Conditions, Section D Response Evaluations, and Contract Award, Sub-Section 7 Number of Awards. Yes, a PSN LTC Plus award would meet the requirements of Section 409.981(2). A Specialty Plan PSN would not meet the requirements of Section 409.974(1). The only reasonable interpretation of this answer is that Specialty Plan PSNs do not satisfy the requirement to contract with a responsive PSN imposed by section 409.974. None of the prospective vendors, including Community, challenged this clarification. EVALUATION PROCESS THE EVALUATORS The Agency selected 11 people to evaluate the proposals. The Agency assigned each person a number used to identify who was assigned to which task and to track performance of evaluation tasks. The procurement officer sent the evaluators a brief memo of instructions. It provided dates; described logistics of evaluation; emphasized the importance of independent evaluation; and prohibited communicating about the ITN and the proposals with anyone other than the procurement office. The Agency also conducted an instructional session for evaluators. Evaluator 1, Marie Donnelly: During the procurement, Ms. Donnelly was the Agency’s Chief of the Bureau of Medicaid Quality. She held this position for five years before resigning. This bureau bore responsibility for ensuring that the current SMMC plans met their contract requirements for quality and quality improvement measures. Her role specifically included oversight of Specialty Plans. Evaluator 2, Erica Floyd Thomas: Ms. Thomas is the chief of the Bureau of Medicaid Policy. She has worked for the Agency since 2001. Her Medicaid experience includes developing policies for hospitals, community behavioral health, residential treatment, and contract oversight. Before serving as bureau chief, she served as an Agency administrator from 2014 through 2017. Ms. Thomas oversaw the policy research and development process for all Medicaid medical, behavioral, dental, facility, and clinic coverage policies to ensure they were consistent with the state Plan and federal Medicaid requirements. Evaluator 3, Rachel LaCroix, Ph.D.: Dr. LaCroix is an administrator in the Agency’s Performance Evaluation and Research Unit. She has worked for the Agency since 2003. All her positions have been in the Medicaid program. Dr. LaCroix has served in her current position since 2011. She works with the performance measures and surveys that the current SMMC providers report to the Agency. Dr. LaCroix is a nationally recognized expert on healthcare quality metrics like HEDIS. She is also an appointee on the National Association of Medicaid Directors’ task force for national performance measures. Evaluator 4, Damon Rich: Mr. Rich has worked for the Agency since April 2009. He is the chief of the Agency’s Bureau of Recipient and Provider Assistance. This bureau interacts directly with AHCA’s current SMMC care providers about any issues they have, and with Medicaid recipients, usually about their eligibility or plan enrollment. Before Mr. Rich was a bureau chief, he worked as a field office manager for the Agency. Mr. Rich’s experience as bureau chief and field office manager includes oversight of the current SMMC Specialty Plans. Evaluator 5. Eunice Medina: Ms. Medina is the chief of the Agency’s Bureau of Medicaid Plan Management, which includes a staff of over 60 individuals, who manage the current SMMC contracts. Her experience and duties essentially encompass all aspects of the current SMMC plans. Ms. Medina started working with the Agency in 2014. Evaluator 6, Devona “DD” Pickle: Ms. Pickle most recently joined the Agency in 2011. She also worked for the Agency from November 2008 through November 2010. Ms. Pickle’s Agency experience all relates in some way to the Medicaid program. Since March 2013, Ms. Pickle has served as an administrator over managed care policy and contract development in the Bureau of Medicaid Policy. Her job duties include working with the current SMMC contractors. Ms. Pickle is also a Florida licensed mental health counselor. Evaluator 7, Tracy Hurd-Alvarez: Ms. Hurd-Alvarez has worked for the Agency’s Medicaid program since 1997. Since 2014, she has been a field office manager, overseeing compliance monitoring for all the current SMMC contractors. Before assuming her current position, Ms. Hurd-Alvarez implemented the LTC SMMC program. Evaluator 8, Gay Munyon: Ms. Munyon is currently the Chief of the Bureau of Medicaid Fiscal Agent Operations. Ms. Munyon began working with the Agency in April 2013. Ms. Munyon’s bureau oversees fulfillment of the Agency’s contract with the current SMMC fiscal agent. Her unit’s responsibilities include systems maintenance and modifications and overseeing the fiscal agent, which answers phone calls, processes claims, and processes applications. Ms. Munyon has 25 years of experience working with the Medicaid program. Evaluator 9, Laura Noyes: Ms. Noyes started working for the Agency in April 2011. Her years of Agency experience all relate to the Medicaid program, including overseeing six current comprehensive managed care plans by identifying trends in contractual non-compliance. Evaluator 10, Brian Meyer: Mr. Meyer is a CPA, who has worked for the Agency in the Medicaid program since 2011. He is currently chief of the Bureau of Medicaid Data Analytics. Mr. Meyer’s primary responsibility is overseeing the capitation rates for the current SMMC contractors. His experience includes Medicaid plan financial statement analysis, surplus requirement calculation analysis and, in general, all types of financial analysis necessary to understand financial performance of the state’s Medicaid plans. Evaluator 11, Ann Kaperak: Since April 2015, Ms. Kaperak has served as an administrator in the Agency’s Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity. Ms. Kaperak’s unit oversees the fraud and abuse efforts of the current SMMC plans. She also worked for the Medicaid program from November 2012 through May 2014. Ms. Kaperak worked as a regulatory compliance manager for Anthem/Amerigroup’s Florida Medicaid program between May 2014 and April 2015. Positive and Community challenge the Agency’s plan selections by questioning the qualifications of the evaluators. The first part of their argument is that the evaluators did not have sufficient knowledge about HIV/AIDS and its treatment. The evidence does not prove the theory. For instance, Positive’s argument relies upon criticizing the amount of clinical experience evaluators had managing patients with HIV/AIDS. That approach minimizes the fact that the managed care plan characteristics involve so much more than disease- specific considerations. For instance, many of the components require determining if the respondent provided required documents, verifying conflict of interest documents, management structure, quality control measures, and the like. General SRCs asked for things like dispute resolution models (SRC 16), claims processing information (SRC 17), and fraud and abuse compliance plans (SRC 31). MMA SRCs included criteria, like telemedicine (SRC 4), demonstrated progress obtaining executed provider agreements (SRC 6), and a credentialing process (SRC 12). Specialty SRCs included criteria like copies of contracts for managed care for the proposed specialty population (SRC 1), specific and detailed criteria defining the proposed specialty population (SRC 4), and the like. The evidence does not prove that disease-specific experience is necessary to evaluate responses to these and other SRCs. SRC 6 involving HEDIS data and SRC 14 involving CAHPS data are two good examples. They required respondents to input data into a spreadsheet. All the evaluators had to do was determine what those numbers showed. Evaluation did not require any understanding of disease or how the measures were created. All the evaluator had to know was the number in the spreadsheet. The second part of the evaluator qualification criticisms is that the evaluators did not give adequate weight to some responses. Positive and Community just disagree with the measures requested and the evaluation of them. They conclude from that disagreement that the evaluators’ qualifications were deficient. The argument is not persuasive. The last sentence of paragraph 69 of Positive’s proposed recommended order exemplifies the criticisms of Positive and Community of the evaluators’ qualifications. It states, “The fact that PHC [Positive] was ranked last among competing HIV plans shows that the SRC evaluators did not understand enough about managing individuals with HIV/AIDs to score its proposal competently.” The argument is circular and “ipse dixit”. It does not carry the day. The collective knowledge and experience of the evaluators, with a total of 128 years of Medicaid experience, made them capable of reasonably evaluating the managed care plan proposals, including the Specialty plan proposals. The record certainly does not prove otherwise. EVALUATION PROCESS The Agency assigned the evaluators to the SRCs that it determined they were qualified to evaluate and score. The Agency did not assign entire responses to an evaluator for review. Instead it elected a piecemeal review process assigning various evaluators to various sections, the SRCs of each response. Paragraph 30 of the Agency’s proposed recommended order describes this decision as follows: Although the ITN had contemplated ranking each vendor by evaluator, based on an example in the ITN, such ranking presumed a process where all evaluators scored all or nearly all of the responses to the ITN, which had occurred in the procurement five years ago. In this procurement, each evaluator reviewed only a subset of SRCs based on their knowledge, and experience; therefore, ranking by evaluator was not logical because each had a different maximum point score. The initial SRC scoring assignments were: General SRCs 1 through 4, LTC SRCs 1 and 2, and Specialty SRC 1: Marie Donnelly, Laura Noyes, and Brian Meyer. General SRCs 5 through 8, MMA SRCs 1 through 7, LTC SRCs 3 and 4, and Specialty SRCs 1 and 2: Marie Donnelly, Erica Floyd- Thomas, and Rachel LaCroix. General SRCs 9 through 14, MMA SRCs 8 through 11, LTC SRCs 5 through 7, and Specialty SRC 4: Damon Rich, Eunice Medina, and DD Pickle. General SRCs 15 through 17, MMA SRCs 12 and 13, and LTC SRCs 8 through 10: Damon Rich, Tracy Hurd-Alvarez, Gay Munyon. General SRCs 18 through 25, MMA SRCs 14 through 20, LTC SRCs 11 and 12, and Specialty SRC 5: Erica Floyd-Thomas, Eunice Medina, and DD Pickle. General SRCs 26 through 33 and LTC SRC 13: Gay Munyon, Ann Kaperak, and Brian Meyer. General SRCs 34 through 36 and MMA SRC 21: Marie Donnelly, Rachel LaCroix, and Tracy Hurd-Alvarez. The ranking process presented in the ITN and described in paragraphs 62-64, contemplated ranking each respondent by evaluator. The Agency carried this process over from an earlier procurement. In this procurement, despite what the ITN said, the Agency assigned responsibilities so that each evaluator reviewed only a subset of SRCs. Therefore, the ranking of responses by evaluator presented in the ITN could not work. It was not even possible because no one evaluator reviewed a complete response and because each SRC had a different maximum point score. Instead, the Agency, contrary to the terms of the ITN, ranked proposals by averaging the “total point scores” assigned by all of the evaluators. The Agency considered issuing an addendum advising the parties of the change. The addendum would have informed the respondents and provided them an opportunity to challenge the change. The Agency elected not to issue an addendum. EVALUATION AND SCORING The evaluators began scoring on November 6, 2017, with a completion deadline of December 29, 2017. The 11 evaluators had to score approximately 230 separate responses to the ITNs. The evaluators had to score 67,175 separate items to complete the scoring for all responses for all regions for all types of plans. No one at the Agency evaluated how much time it should take to score a particular item. None of the parties to this proceeding offered persuasive evidence to support a finding that scoring any particular item would or should take a specific length of time or that scoring all of the responses would or should take a specific length of time. Evaluators scored the responses in conference room F at the Agency’s headquarters. This secure room was the exclusive location for evaluation and scoring. Each evaluator had a dedicated workspace equipped with all tools and resources necessary for the task. The workspaces included a computer terminal for each evaluator. The system allowed evaluators to review digital copies of the ITN and proposals and to enter evaluation points in spreadsheets created for the purpose of recording scores. Evaluators also had access to hard copies of the proposals and the ITN. The Agency required evaluators to sign in and to sign out. The sign-in and sign-out sheets record the significant amount of time the evaluators spent evaluating proposals. Evaluators were not permitted to communicate with each other about the responses. To minimize distractions, the Agency prohibited cell phones, tablets and other connected devices in the room. The Agency also authorized and encouraged the evaluators to delegate their usual responsibilities. Agency proctors observed the room and evaluators throughout the scoring process. They were available to answer general and procedural questions and to ensure that the evaluators signed in and signed out. A log sheet documented how much time each evaluator spent in the scoring conference room. Some evaluators took extensive notes. For example, Ms. Median took over 200 pages of notes. Similarly, Ms. Munyon took nearly 400 pages of typewritten notes. The evaluators worked hard. None, other than Dr. LaCroix, testified that they did not have enough time to do their job. The computer system also automatically tracked the evaluators’ progress. Tracking reports showed the number of items assigned to each evaluator and the number of scoring items completed. The first status report was generated on December 8, 2017, approximately halfway through the scheduled scoring. At that time, only 28 percent of the scoring items were complete. Ms. Barrett usually ran the status reports in the morning. She made them available to the evaluators to review. The pace of evaluation caused concern about timely completion and prompted discussions of ways to accelerate scoring. Because it was clear that the majority of the evaluators would not complete scoring their SRCs by December 29, 2017, the Agency extended the scoring deadline to January 12, 2018. It also extended the hours for conference room use. Most respondents filed proposals for more than one type of plan and more than one region. This fact combined with the provision in the instructions saying that all statewide SRC responses must be identical for each region and that scores would transfer to each applicable region’s score sheets, enabled evaluators to score many SRCs just once. The system would then auto-populate the scores to the same SRC for all proposals by that respondent. This time saving measure permitted scoring on many of the items to be almost instantaneous after review of the first response to an SRC. The fact that so many respondents submitted proposals for so many regions and types of plans provided the Agency another opportunity for time-saving. The Agency loaded Adobe Pro on the evaluators’ computers as a timesaving measure. This program allowed the evaluators to compare a bidder’s Comprehensive Plan Proposal to the same company’s regional and Specialty Plan proposals. If the Adobe Pro comparison feature showed that the proposal response was the same for each plan, the Agency permitted evaluators to score the response once and assign the same score for each item where the respondent provided the same proposal. This speeded scoring. It, however, meant that for SRCs where evaluators did this, that they were not reviewing the SRC response in the specific context of the specialty plan population, each of which had specific and limited characteristics that made them different from the broader General and MMA plan populations. This is significant because so many SRCs required narrative responses where context would matter. There is no Specialty SRCs A-4 instruction requirement for specialty plans analogous to the requirement that responses for statewide SRCs must be identical for each region. In other words, the instructions do not say all SRCs marked as statewide must be identical for each specialty plan proposal and that the Agency will evaluate each Statewide SRC once and transfer the score to each applicable Specialty Plan score. In fact, according to the procurement officer, the Agency expected that evaluators would separately evaluate and score the statewide SRCs for Comprehensive Plans and for Specialty Plans, even if the same bidder submitted them. Despite the Agency’s expectation and the absence of an authorizing provision in the ITN, many evaluators, relying on the Adobe Pro tool, copied the SRC scores they gave to a respondent’s comprehensive plan proposal to its specialty plan proposal if the respondent submitted the same response to an SRC for a Comprehensive Plan and a Specialty Plan. For instance, Ms. Thomas (Evaluator 2) and Ms. Munyon (Evaluator 8) did this to save time. Ms. Donnelly (Evaluator 1) did this even when the comprehensive and specialty responses were not identical. This does not amount to the independent evaluation of the responses pledged by the ITN. On separate days, Evaluator 1 scored 1,315 items, 954 items, 779 items and 727 items. On separate days, Evaluator 2 scored 613 items, 606 items, 720 items, 554 items and 738 items. Evaluator 4 scored 874 items on one day. Evaluator 5 scored 813 items in one day. Evaluator 6 scored 1,001 items in one day. Evaluator 8 scored 635 items in one day. The record does not identify the items scored. It also does not permit determining how many of the item scores resulted from auto-population or assignment of scores based upon previous scoring of an identical response. It bears repeating, however, that the record does not support any finding on how long scoring the response to one SRC or an entire response could reasonably be expected to take. Even with the extended scoring period and time-saving measures, the Agency concluded that Evaluator 3 would not be able to finish all of the SRCs assigned to her. Rather than extend the deadline for scoring a second time, the Agency decided to reassign the nine of Evaluator 3’s SRCs that she had not begun scoring to two other evaluators. The Agency did not include scores of other SRCs for which Evaluator 3 had not completed scoring. The Agency only counted Evaluator 3’s scores for an SRC if she scored the SRC for everyone. The result was that only two people scored nine of the Specialty Plan SRCs. The Agency did not reassign all of Evaluator 3’s SRCs’. It only reassigned the SRCs to evaluators who were qualified to evaluate the items, who were not already assigned those items to score, and who had already finished or substantially completed their own evaluations. The decision to reassign the SRCs was not based on any scoring that had already been completed. The Agency did not allow changes to data submitted by any of the vendors. It allowed vendors to exchange corrupted electronic files for ones which could be opened and allowed vendors to exchange electronic files to match up with the paper copies that had been submitted. The Agency allowed Community to correct its submission where it lacked a signature on its transmittal letter and allowed Community to exchange an electronic document that would not open. It did not allow Community to change its reported HEDIS scores, which were submitted in the decimal form required by the instructions. Community erred in the numbers that it reported. There is no evidence showing that other vendors received a competitive or unfair advantage over Community in the Agency’s review of the SMI Specialty Plan submission for Region 10. There was no evidence that the Agency allowed any other vendors to change any substantive information in their submittals for that proposed specialty in that region. HEIDIS ISSUES Positive asserts that Simply’s proposal is non- responsive because Simply submitted HEDIS data from the general Medicaid population in response to SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14. Positive contends that Simply obtained a competitive advantage by supplying non-HIV/AIDS HEDIS data in response to SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 because HIV/AIDS patients are generally a sicker group and require more care and because some HEDIS measures cannot be reported for an HIV/AIDS population. HEDIS stands for Healthcare Effectiveness and Data Information Set and is a set of standardized performance measures widely used in the healthcare industry. The instructions for both SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 provide, in relevant part: The respondent shall describe its experience in achieving quality standards with populations similar to the target population described in this solicitation. The respondent shall include in table format, the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible), the respondent’s results for the HEDIS measures specified below for each of the last two (2) years (CY 2015/HEDIS 2016 and CY 2016/HEDIS 2017) for the respondent’s three (3) largest Medicaid Contracts (measured by number of enrollees). If the respondent does not have HEDIS results for at least three (3) Medicaid Contracts, the respondent shall provide commercial HEDIS measures for the respondent’s largest Contracts. If the Respondent has Florida Medicaid HEDIS results, it shall include the Florida Medicaid experience as one (1) of three (3) states for the last two (2) years. (JE 1 at 75 (SRC 6); JE 1 at 158 (MMA SRC 14)). SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 instruct respondents to provide HEDIS measures for “the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible).” Id.. TANF, ABD, and dual eligible are eligibility classifications for the Medicaid population. The Agency sought information regarding the target Medicaid-eligible population, even from respondents proposing a Specialty Plan, because Specialty Plans are required to serve all of the healthcare needs of their recipients, not just the needs related to the criteria making those recipients eligible for the Specialty Plan. Following the instructions in SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14, Simply provided HEDIS data from the Medicaid-eligible population for its three largest Medicaid contracts as measured by the total number of enrollees. For the requested Florida HEDIS data, Simply utilized legacy HEDIS data from Amerigroup Florida, Inc., a Comprehensive Plan. Amerigroup and Simply had merged in October of 2017. Therefore, at the time of submission of Simply’s proposal, the HEDIS data from Amerigroup Florida was the data from Simply’s largest Medicaid contract in Florida for the period requested by the SRCs. Positive asserts that the Agency impermissibly altered scoring criteria after the proposals were submitted when the Agency corrected technical issues within a HEDIS Measurement Tool spreadsheet. SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 required the submission of numeric data for the requested HEDIS performance measures. To simplify submission of the numeric data for the requested HEDIS performance measures, the Agency required respondents to utilize a HEDIS Measurement Tool spreadsheet. The evaluation criteria for SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 provided that respondents will be awarded points if the reported HEDIS measures exceed the national or regional mean for such performance measures. Some respondents, including Positive, entered “N/A,” “small denominator,” or other text inputs into the HEDIS Measurement Tool. During the evaluation and scoring process, the Agency discovered that if a respondent input any text into the HEDIS Measurement Tool, the tool would assign random amounts of points, even though respondents had not input measureable, numeric data. The Agency reasonably resolved the problem by removing any text and inserting a zero in place of the text. The correction of the error in the HEDIS Measurement Tool prevented random points from being awarded to respondents and did not alter scores in any way contrary to the ITN. It was reasonable and fair to all respondents.
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 rejecting all r esponses to the ITNs to provide a Medicaid Managed Care plan for patients with HIV/AIDS in Regions 10 and 11. 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 inviting Community to negotiate to provide Medicaid Managed Care plan in Region 10 for patients with serious mental illness. 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 inviting Community to negotiate to provide a Medicaid Managed Care plan in Region 10 for patients with serious mental illness. 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 inviting Community to negotiate to provide a Medicaid Managed Care plan in Region 10 for c hild w elfare specialty services. 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 awarding Wellcare of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Staywell Health Plan of Florida, a contract for a specialty Medicaid Managed Care plan for patients with Serious Mental Illness in Region 10. 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 dismissing the Petition in Case No. 18-3513. DONE AND ENTERED this day of , , in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 day of , .
Conclusions THE PARTIES resolved all disputed issues and executed a Settlement Agreement. The parties are directed to comply with the terms of the attached settlement agreement. Based on the foregoing, this file is CLOSED. DONE and ORDERED on this the" day of le , 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ‘LM, fo: ABETH DUDEK, SECRETA “Agency for Health Care Administration 1 Filed May 8, 2013 11:26 AM Division of Administrative Hearings A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Mario Rub, M.D. Pediatric Pulmonologist 20776 W. Dixie Highway Aventura, Florida 33180 (Via U.S. Mail) Errol H. Powell Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Willis F. Melvin Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Office of the General Counsel (Via Electronic Mail) Ken Yon, Acting Bureau Chief, Medicaid Program Integrity Finance and Accounting Health Quality Assurance (via email) DOH (via email) License number ME69331 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to the above named addressees by U.S. Mail, Laserfiche or electronic mail on this the 5 day of By » 2013. —) Richard Shoop, Esqu: Agency Clerk State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 412-3630/FAX (850) 921-0158 ire STATE OF FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Petitioner, vs. DOAH Case No.: 13-0129MPI AHCA CLI. No.: 12-1694-000 MARIO RUB, M.D., Respondent. / SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (“AHCA” or “the Agency”), and MARIO RUB, M.D. (“PROVIDER”), by and through the undersigned, hereby stipulates and agrees as follows: 1. This Agreement is entered into for the purpose of memorializing the final resolution of the matters set forth in this Agreement. 2. PROVIDER is a Medicaid provider (Medicaid Provider No. 256291000) and was a provider during the audit period, September 1, 2008 to February 28, 2011. 3. In its final audit report (FAR) dated November 13, 2012 for the case referenced as C.I. No. 12-1694-000, AHCA notified PROVIDER that review of Medicaid claims performed by Medicaid Program Integrity (MPI) indicated that, in its opinion, some claims in whole or in part had been inappropriately paid. The Agency sought recoupment of this overpayment in the amount of $14,039.92. In response to the FAR, PROVIDER filed a petition for a formal administrative hearing. It was assigned DOAH Case No. 13-0129MPI. 4. Subsequent to the original audit, and in preparation for trial, AHCA re-reviewed the PROVIDER’s claims and evaluated additional documentation submitted by the PROVIDER. As a result of the additional review, AHCA determined the overpayment should be adjusted to $5,752.06 plus $1,154.41 in fines and $1,659.66 in costs for a total due of $8,566.13. 5. In order to resolve this matter without further administrative proceedings, PROVIDER and the AHCA expressly agree as follows: (1) AHCA agrees to accept the payment set forth herein in settlement of the overpayment issues arising from the captioned audit. (2) The amount in dispute that is now being resolved is five thousand seven hundred fifty-two dollars and six cents ($5,752.06) on the indebtedness, one thousand one hundred fifty-four dollars and forty-one cents ($1,154.41) in fines, plus one thousand six hundred fifty-nine dollars and sixty-six cents ($1,659.66) in investigative costs for a total of eight thousand five hundred sixty-six dollars and thirteen cents ($8,566.13). PROVIDER will make an initial payment of one thousand seven hundred thirteen dollars and twenty-three cents ($1,713.23) followed by eleven (11) monthly payments of six hundred two dollars and forty- eight cents ($602.48) and one final payment of six hundred two dollars and forty- six cents ($602.46). The first payment will be due beginning thirty (30) days after the Final Order date. This amount due will be offset by any amount already received by the Agency in this matter. Furthermore, PROVIDER is advised that pursuant to Section 409.913, Florida Statutes, failure to pay in full, or enter into and abide by the terms of any repayment schedule set forth by the Agency may result in termination from the Medicaid program, withholding of future Medicaid payments, or other such remedies as provided by law. Any outstanding balance accrues at 10% interest per year. Full payment will fully and completely settle all claims in these proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH Case No. 13-0129MPI). Should the provider’s enrollment with Medicaid be terminated, the full amount owed will be due within 30 days of termination. (3) In the event any interim payments are received or withheld, by whatever means, prior to the entry of the Final Order, Medicaid Accounts Receivable shall make the adjustment to credit such amounts, dollar for dollar, as quickly as is practicable. (4) Compliance with this repayment agreement fully and completely settles all claims in these proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH Case No. 13-0129MPI). Should the provider’s enrollment with Medicaid be terminated, the full amount owed will be due within 30 days of termination. (5) PROVIDER and AHCA agree that full payment, as set forth above, resolves and settles this case completely. It will release both parties from any administrative or civil liabilities or claims arising from the findings in audit C.I. 12-1694-000. (6) PROVIDER agrees that it will not rebill the Medicaid Program in any manner for claims that were not covered by Medicaid, which are the subject of the audit in this case. 6. Questions regarding procedures for submitting payment should be directed to Medicaid Accounts Receivable, (850) 412-3901. The C.J. number listed on the first page of this agreement must be legibly entered on the check to assure proper credit. Please mail payment to: AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE ADMINISTRATION Medicaid Accounts Receivable — MS # 14 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. 2, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 7. PROVIDER agrees that failure to pay any monies due and owing under the terms of this Agreement shall constitute PROVIDER’S authorization for the Agency, without further notice, to withhold the total remaining amount due under the terms of this agreement from any monies due and owing to PROVIDER for any Medicaid claims. 8. AHCA reserves the right to enforce this Agreement under the laws of the State of Florida, the Rules of the Medicaid Program, and all other applicable rules and regulations. 9. This settlement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing or error by either party with respect to this case or any other matter. 10. Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, with the exception that the Respondent shall reimburse, as part of this settlement, $1,659.66 in Agency costs and $1,154.41 in fines. This amount is included in the calculations and demand of paragraph 5(2). 11. The signatories to this Agreement, acting in a representative capacity, represent that they are duly authorized to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the respective parties. 12. | This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the provisions of the laws of Florida. Venue for any action arising from this Agreement shall be in Leon County, Florida. 13. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between PROVIDER and AHCA, including anyone acting for, associated with or employed by them, concerning all matters and supersedes any prior discussions, agreements or understandings; there are no promises, representations or agreements between PROVIDER and the AHCA other than as set forth herein. No modification or waiver of any provision shall be valid unless a written amendment to the Agreement is completed and properly executed by the parties. 14. This is an Agreement of settlement and compromise, made in recognition that the parties may have different or incorrect understandings, information and contentions, as to facts and law, and with each party compromising and settling any potential correctness or 4 incorrectness of its understandings, information and contentions as to facts and law, so that no misunderstanding or misinformation shall be a ground for rescission hereof. 15. PROVIDER expressly waives in this matter its right to any hearing pursuant to sections 120.569 or 120.57, Florida Statutes, the making of findings of fact and conclusions of law by the Agency, and all further and other proceedings to which it may be entitled by law or rules of the Agency regarding this proceeding and any and all issues raised herein. PROVIDER further agrees that it shall not challenge or contest any Final Order entered in this matter which is consistent with the terms of this settlement agreement in any forum now or in the future available to it, including the right to any administrative proceeding, circuit or federal court action or any appeal. 16. | This Agreement is and shall be deemed jointly drafted and written by all parties to it and shall not be construed or interpreted against the party originating or preparing it. 17. To the extent that any provision of this Agreement is prohibited by law for any reason, such provision shall be effective to the extent not so prohibited, and such prohibition shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement. 18. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding on each party’s successors, assigns, heirs, administrators, representatives and trustees. 19. All times stated herein are of the essence of this Agreement. THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK MARIO RUB, M.D. Printed Representativé$ Name BY. Nacio buh, 305 0060381 DEA BR 4969664 20776 W. DDGE HWY. AVENTURA, FL 33180 (905) 931-1812 + FAX (305) 931-1632 FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Wl « CC mMmActeR General Counsel Aoegack dll Chief Medicaid Counsel hy. Willis F. Melvin, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: 2| \3 , 2013 S/3 ,2013 r// 2 ,2013 3 5 2013 Februany LF ,2013 RICK SCOTT FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION GOVERNOR Better Health Care for all Floridians CERTIFIED MAIL No.:7009 2820 0001 5671 9368 November 13, 2012 Provider No: 2562910-00 NPI No: 1790889996 License No.:ME69331 Mario Rub, M.D. 20776 West Dixie Highway North Miami Beach, Florida 33180 In Reply Refer to FINAL AUDIT REPORT C.L: No. 12-1694-000 Dear Provider: ELIZABETH DUDEK SECRETARY The Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), Office of Inspector General, Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity, has completed a review of claims for Medicaid reimbursement for dates of service during the period September 1, 2008, through February 28, 2011. A preliminary audit report dated July 16, 2012, was sent to you indicating that we had determined you were overpaid $279,132.60. Based upon a review of all documentation submitted, we have determined that you were overpaid $14,039.92 for services that in whole or in part are not covered by Medicaid. A fine of $2,807.98 has been applied. The cost assessed for this audit is $1,359.66. The total amount due is $18,207.56. Be advised of the following: (1) In accordance with Sections 409.913(15), (16), and (17), Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Rule 59G- 9.070, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), the Agency shall apply sanctions for violations of federal and state laws, including Medicaid policy. This letter shall serve as notice of the following sanction(s): e A fine of $2,807.98 for violation(s) of Rule Section 59G-9.070(7) (e), F.A.C. (2) Pursuant to Section 409.913(23) (a), F.S., the Agency is entitled to recover all investigative, legal, and expert witness costs. 2727 Mahan Drive, MS# 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Visit AHCA online at http://ahca.myflorida.com Mario Rub, M.D. Provider ID: 2562910-00 CI. No.:12-1694-000 Page 2 This review and the determination of overpayment were made in accordance with the provisions of Section 409.913, F.S. In determining the appropriateness of Medicaid payment pursuant to Medicaid policy, the Medicaid program utilizes procedure codes, descriptions, policies, limitations and requirements found in the Medicaid provider handbooks and Section 409.913, F.S. In applying for Medicaid reimbursement, providers are required to follow the guidelines set forth in the applicable rules and Medicaid fee schedules, as promulgated in the Medicaid policy handbooks, billing bulletins, and the Medicaid provider agreement. Medicaid cannot pay for services that do not meet these guidelines. Below is a discussion of the particular guidelines related to the review of your claims, and an explanation of why these claims do not meet Medicaid requirements. The audit work papers are attached, listing the claims that are affected by this determination. REVIEW DETERMINATION(S) Medicaid policy defines the varying levels of care and expertise required for the evaluation and management procedure codes for office visits. The documentation you provided supports a lower level of office visit than the one for which you billed and received payment. This determination was made by a peer consultant in accordance with Sections 409.913 and 409.9131, F.S. The difference between the amount you were paid and the correct payment for the appropriate level of service is considered an overpayment. Medicaid policy requires that services performed be medically necessary for the diagnosis and treatment ofan illness. You billed and received payments for services for which the medical records, when reviewed by a Medicaid physician consultant, were insufficient to justify billing for code indicated. The documentation failed to meet the Medicaid criteria for medical necessity. The claims were either disallowed or adjusted by the peer to reflect service documented. OVERPAYMENT CALCULATION A random sample of 35 recipients respecting whom you submitted 173 claims was reviewed. For those claims in the sample, which have dates of service from September 1, 2008, through February 28, 2011, an overpayment of $846.51 or $4.89312139 per claim, was found. Since you were paid for a total (population) of 3,994 claims for that period, the point estimate of the total overpayment is 3,994 x 4,89312139 = $19,543.13. There is a 50 percent probability that the overpayment to you is that amount or more. We used the following statistical formula for cluster sampling to calculate the amount due the Agency: E- oe) ses 4 - -YB,y Where: N N E = point estimate of overpayment = SA, > B | Mario Rub, M.D. Provider ID: 2562910-00 CI. No.:12-1694-000 Page 3 U F = number of claims in the population = s B is] A, = total overpayment in sample cluster B, = number of claims in sample cluster U =number of clusters in the population N = number of clusters in the random sample N N Y = mean overpayment per claim = > A, > B, i=] j= t = t value from the Distribution of ¢ Table All of the claims relating to a recipient represent a cluster. The values of overpayment and number of claims for each recipient in the sample are shown on the attachment entitled “Overpayment Calculation Using Cluster Sampling.” From this statistical formula, which is generally accepted for this purpose, we have calculated that the overpayment to you is $14,039.92, with a ninety-five percent (95%) probability that it is that amount or more. If you are currently involved in a bankruptcy, you should notify your attorney immediately and provide a copy of this letter for them. Please advise your attorney that we need the following information immediately: (1) the date of filing of the bankruptcy petition; (2) the case number; (3) the court name and the division in which the petition was filed (e.g., Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division); and, (4) the name, address, and telephone number of your attorney. If you are not in bankruptcy and you concur with our findings, remit by certified check in the amount of $18,207.56, which includes the overpayment amount as well as any fines imposed and assessed costs. The check must be payable to the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration. Questions regarding procedures for submitting payment should be directed to Medicaid Accounts Receivable, (850) 412-3901. To ensure proper credit, be certain you legibly record on your check your Medicaid provider number and the C.J. number listed on the first page of this audit report. Please mail payment to: Medicaid Accounts Receivable - MS # 14 Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Bldg. 2, Ste. 200 Tallahassee, FL 32308 Pursuant to section 409.913(25)(d), F.S., the Agency may collect money owed by all means allowable by law, including, but not limited to, exercising the option to collect money from Medicare that is payable to the provider. Pursuant to section 409.913(27), F.S., if within 30 days following this notice you have not either repaid the alleged overpayment amount or entered into a satisfactory repayment agreement with the Agency, your Medicaid reimbursements will be withheld; they will continue to be withheld, even during the pendency of an administrative hearing, until such time as the overpayment amount is satisfied. Pursuant to section 409.913(30), F.S., the Agency shall terminate your participation in the Medicaid program if you fail to repay an overpayment or enter into a satisfactory repayment agreement with the Agency, within 35 days after the date of a final order which is no longer subject to further appeal. Pursuant to sections 409.913(15)(q) and 409.913(25)(c), F.S., a provider that does not adhere to the terms of a repayment agreement is subject to termination from the Medicaid program. Mario Rub, M.D. Provider ID: 2562910-00 C.J. No.:12-1694-000 Page 4 Finally, failure to comply with all sanctions applied or due dates may result in additional sanctions being imposed. You have the right to request a formal or informal hearing pursuant to Section 120.569, F.S. Ifa request for a formal hearing is made, the petition must be made in compliance with Section 28-106.201, F.A.C. and mediation may be available. If a request for an informal hearing is made, the petition must be made in compliance with rule Section 28-106.301, F.A.C. Additionally, you are hereby informed that ifa request for a hearing is made, the petition must be received by the Agency within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of this letter. For more information regarding your hearing and mediation rights, please see the attached Notice of Administrative Hearing and Mediation Rights. Any questions you may have about this matter should be directed to: : Jennifer Ellingsen, Investigator, Agency for Health Care Administration, Office of Inspector General, Medicaid Program Integrity, 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #6, Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403, telephone (850) 412- 4600, facsimile (850) 410-1972. Sincerely, Se Be Fred Becknell AHCA Administrator Office of Inspector General Medicaid Program Integrity FB/jse Enclosure(s) Copies furnished to: Finance & Accounting (Interoffice mail) Health Quality Assurance (E-mail) Department of Health (E-mail) Mario Rub, M.D. Provider ID: 2562910-00 C.J. No.:12-1694-000 Page 5 NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND MEDIATION RIGHTS You have the right to request an administrative hearing pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. If you disagree with the facts stated in the foregoing Final Audit Report (hereinafter FAR), you may request a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. If you do not dispute the facts stated in the FAR, but believe there are additional reasons to grant the relief you seek, you may request an informal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. Additionally, pursuant to Section 120.573, Florida Statutes, mediation may be available if you have chosen a formal administrative hearing, as discussed more fully below. The written request for an administrative hearing must conform to the requirements of either Rule 28- 106.201(2) or Rule 28-106.301(2), Florida Administrative Code, and must be received by the Agency for Health Care Administration, by 5:00 P.M. no later than 21 days after you received the FAR. The address for filing the written request for an administrative hearing is: Richard J. Shoop, Esquire Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Fax: (850) 921-0158 Phone: (850) 412-3630 The request must be legible, on 8 % by 11-inch white paper, and contain: 1. Your name, address, telephone number, any Agency identifying number on the FAR, if known, and name, address, and telephone number of your representative, if any; 2. An explanation of how your substantial interests will be affected by the action described in the FAR; 3. A statement of when and how you received the FAR; 4. Fora request for formal hearing, a statement of all disputed issues of material fact; 5. Fora request for formal hearing, a concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, as well as the rules and statutes which entitle you to relief; 6. Fora request for formal hearing, whether you request mediation, if it is available; 7. For a request for informal hearing, what bases support an adjustment to the amount owed to the Agency; and 8. A demand for relief. A formal hearing will be held if there are disputed issues of material fact. Additionally, mediation may be available in conjunction with a formal hearing. Mediation is a way to use a neutral third party to assist the parties in a legal or administrative proceeding to reach a settlement of their case. If you and the Agency agree to mediation, it does not mean that you give up the right to a hearing. Rather, you and the Agency will try to settle your case first with mediation. If you request mediation, and the Agency agrees to it, you will be contacted by the Agency to set up a time for the mediation and to enter into a mediation agreement. If a mediation agreement is not reached within 10 days following the request for mediation, the matter will proceed without mediation. The mediation must be concluded within 60 days of having entered into the agreement, unless you and the Agency agree to a different time period. The mediation agreement between you and the Agency will include provisions for selecting the mediator, the allocation of costs and fees associated with the mediation, and the confidentiality of discussions and documents involved in the mediation. Mediators charge hourly fees that must be shared equally by you and the Agency. If a written request for an administrative hearing is not timely received you will have waived your right to have the intended action reviewed pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and the action set forth in the FAR shall be conclusive and final. FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION Provider: 256291000 - MARIO RUB Overpayment Calculation Using Cluster Sampling by Recip Name Dates Of Service: 9/1/2008 through 2/28/2011 Number of recipients in population: Number of recipients in sample: Total payments in population: No. of claims in population: Totals: Using Overpayment per claim method Overpayment per sample claim: Point estimate of the overpayment: Variance of the overpayment: Standard error of the overpayment: Half confidence interval: Overpayment at the 95 % Confidence level: Overpayment run on 11/9/2012 COON ADH RWHNA 600 35 $1,083,860.97 3,994 $4.89312139 $19,543.13 $10,592,145.98 $3,254.56 $5,503.21 $14,039.92 33 FP NN FB HOMER ANNA aNWaAn = =a nN 173 Case ID: Confidence level: t value: $228.96 $145.15 $281.20 $121.92 $153.25 $68.64 $747.83 $228.96 $121.92 $168.96 $28,469.80 $76.70 $87.60 $236.70 $2,803.99 $229.95 $297.69 $171.41 $87.60 $129.39 $259.20 $3,257.45 $234.17 $87.60 $251.87 $75.97 $57.55 $34.32 $693.77 $87.60 $173.92 $87.60 $20,625.31 $121.92 $75.97 $60,981.84 Page 4 of 4 NPI: 1790889996 12-1694-000 95 % 1.690924 $0.00 $0.00 $117.70 $0.00 $0.00 $52.55 $194.73 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $126.76 $19.16 $0.00 $38.32 $0.00 $0.00 $38.30 $0.00 $0.00 $41.79 $54.28 $0.00 $68.75 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $94.17 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $846.51 Page 1 of 1) ( | SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ® Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Htam 4 If Reatricted Delivery Is desired, @ Print your name and address on the reverse 80 that we can return the card to you. ® Attach this card to the back of the malipisce, ot aathn dront. Ihsvares. rete pew ™ Attach this card to the back of the mallplece, or on the front If space permits, 1. Article Addressed to: &. Hecwived by ( Printed Name) D. Is delivary address different from item 17 1 Yes IC YES, enter delivery address below: = No Mario Rub, M.D. '" 20776 West Dixie Highwa: . 'y 3. Service Type North Miami Beach, Florida 33180 Centtied Mat ©) Express Mail Cl. # 12+1694-000 JE-re Ci Regletered —-C) Return Recelpt for Merchandlee - D Insured Mall = 6.0.0, 4, Restricted Delivery? (Exira Fea) ves 2, Article Number Ganetertiomsoriceteboy 008 EBe0 OOOL Sb?) 53b8 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Recelpt 102595-02-M-1640 ; UniTeD States Postac SERVICE | } | | FI LORIDA AGENCY Fon SEAR CORE 2727 Mahan Dri ve, MS #6 Tallahassee Florid; Medical Unit 052308 Falbssh locas dasbaldadaElbasbeadashatbnllaht i i { { i ' ‘ i Englion Customer Service &4aUSPSCOM Quick Tools Track & Confirm YOUR LABEL NUMBER | 7o097820000188719388 i Check on Another Item What's your label (or receipt) number? LEGAL Privacy Policy » Terms of Use > FOIA> No FEAR Act EEO Oata > OTHER USPS SITES. ‘Business Custamar Gataway > Postal inspectors » Inspector General » Postal Explorer > Copyright® 2012 USPS. AN Rights Raservad. USPS Mobile Ship a Package Send Mail SERVICE STATUS OF YOURITEM i Detivered ; ON USPS.COM Government Sarvices » Buy Stamps & Shop > Print a Label with Postage > Customer Service > Site Index > Register / Signin Search USPS.com or Track Packages Manage Your Mail Shop Business Solutions DATE & TIME LOCATION FEATURES. ' November 49, 2012,3:26 pm’ MIAMI, FL 33480, | Certified Mait = ‘ON ABOUT.USPS.COM About USPS Homie + Newstoom > Mail Service Updates » Forms & Publications » Careers >
The Issue Whether Respondent was overpaid $237,802.50 for services that in whole, or in part, are not covered by Medicaid because the services were performed by rendering providers who did not have the requisite education or work experience to meet the eligibility requirements in the Behavior Analysis Services Coverage Handbook (“BA Handbook”) to perform the services or for whom documentation was insufficient to determine eligibility; and, if so, the amount of the overpayment to be repaid, the amount of any fine to be imposed against Respondent, and the amount of any investigative, legal, and expert witness costs to be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact This case involves a Medicaid audit by AHCA of Respondent, which relates to dates of service from November 1, 2017, through December 31, 2018 ("audit period"). During the audit period, Respondent was an enrolled Medicaid provider and had a valid Medicaid provider agreement with AHCA, Medicaid Provider No. 017421300. As an enrolled Medicaid provider, Respondent was subject to the duly- enacted federal and state statutes, regulations, rules, policy guidelines, and Medicaid handbooks incorporated by reference into rule, which were in effect during the audit period. AHCA is designated as the single state agency authorized to make payments for medical assistance and related services under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. This program of medical assistance is designated the "Medicaid Program." See § 409.902, Fla. Stat. AHCA has the responsibility for overseeing and administering the Medicaid Program for the State of Florida, pursuant to section 409.913, Florida Statutes. AHCA’s Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity (MPI), pursuant to its statutory authority, conducted an audit of Respondent of paid Medicaid claims for services to Medicaid recipients. Medicaid claims are paid under what is known as a “pay and chase” system. Claims are quickly paid under the presumption the provider is billing in accordance with Medicaid law and rules. When paid claims are later audited and AHCA finds non-compliant claims, the payments are deemed overpayments and AHCA requests reimbursement. Section 409.913 allows MPI to audit for fraud and abuse. Abuse includes “[p]rovider practices that are inconsistent with generally accepted business…practices and that result in an unnecessary cost to the Medicaid program….” See § 409.913(1)(a)1., Fla. Stat. All Florida Medicaid providers are required to maintain, for at least five years, “contemporaneous documentation of entitlement to payment, including employment eligibility, compliance with all Medicaid Rules, regulations, handbooks and policies.” This includes business records, Medicaid-related records and medical records. See § 409.913(7)(e) and (f), Fla. Stat. A provider’s failure to document, in accordance with Medicaid handbooks and the Provider Enrollment Agreement, whether its rendering providers met the criteria to provide services, as stated in the promulgated handbook, is inconsistent with generally accepted business practices. Behavior analysis services are “highly structured interventions, strategies, and approaches provided to decrease maladaptive behaviors and increase or reinforce appropriate behavior for persons with mental health disorders, and developmental or intellectual disabilities.”1 Medicaid coverage for these services is limited to children under the age of 21. Behavior analysis 1 See Section 1.0 “Introduction” of Florida Medicaid Behavior Analysis Services Coverage Policy (October 2017); Fla. Admin. Code R. 59G-4.125. recipients are a vulnerable population, consisting of individuals that have mental health disorders, and intellectual and developmental disabilities, including, but not limited to, autism and Down Syndrome. They often have severe deficits in their abilities to complete self-care tasks and communicate their wants and needs. These clients are at a heightened risk of abuse, neglect, and exploitation because of their developmental disabilities and inability to self-preserve. For these reasons, persons entrusted to provided critical services must meet the minimum qualifications. To provide appropriate services to this vulnerable population, BAs are required to meet the criteria set forth in Section 3.2 of the BA Handbook, incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-4.125, “Behavior Analysis Services,” as amended, October 29, 2017. The BA Handbook requires a BA to have “a bachelor’s degree from an accredited university or college in a related human service field” and an agreement to become a Registered Behavior Technician (“RBT”) by 1/1/19; or, alternatively: (1) be at least 18 years old; (2) have a high school diploma; (3) have “at least two years of experience providing direct services to recipients with mental health disorders, developmental or intellectual disabilities”; and (4) have at least “20 hours of documented in-service trainings in the treatment of mental health, developmental or intellectual disabilities, recipient rights, crisis management strategies and confidentiality.” AHCA’S AUDIT This audit was opened in follow-up to AHCA’s statewide review of behavior analysis services. The assessment of these services revealed rampant fraud and abuse within the behavior analysis program including more than twice as many providers as recipients, providers billing unbelievable hours (such as more than 24 hours per day), and unsubstantiated qualifications, meaning that patients were receiving BA services from unqualified providers. Based on information obtained in the statewide behavior analysis review, AHCA issued a moratorium regarding new enrollments in Southeast Florida and chose a number of providers for audits. Respondent was selected for audit. Petitioner audited Respondent's records related to paid claims from November 1, 2017, through December 31, 2018. This audit period was selected because an updated Behavior Analysis Handbook was promulgated and became effective October 29, 2017.2 AHCA’s review of Respondent's records consisted of identifying the rendering providers for whom Respondent provided insufficient or no documentation to support their qualifications to render behavior analysis services. The parties stipulated that none of the rendering providers at issue had both a bachelor’s degree “in a related human services field” and had obtained their RBT by January 1, 2019. Respondent and AHCA also stipulated that the records for each rendering provider indicate they were at least 18 years old and had obtained at least a high school diploma or its equivalent. The only questions that remained was did the BA provider have the requisite two years of experience with the target population and did they have 20 hours or more of the required applicable in-service training. During the Audit Period, Respondent submitted claims for services rendered by 169 rendering providers, for which Medicaid paid Respondent a total of $3,999,828.65. Based on the audit, Petitioner initially determined Respondent had been overpaid in the amount of $1,060,590.41. AHCA issued a Preliminary Audit Report (“PAR”) dated March 25, 2019, notifying Respondent of the rendering providers deemed not qualified and the amount 2 During the MPI audit period, Respondent was placed under pre-payment review by a different section of AHCA. Respondent stopped billing during the audit period and its Medicaid provider number was terminated without cause in October 2018. As such, although the audit period was from November 1, 2017, through December 31, 2018, the last claims reviewed in the audit were for date of service March 28, 2018, as that was the date of the last paid claim. of the overpayment associated with each. Respondent was given the opportunity to pay the PAR amount or submit additional records. In response to the PAR, Respondent submitted additional records. Based on the those additional records, AHCA issued a FAR dated July 19, 2019, alleging Respondent was overpaid $905,838.36 for BA services it billed for 41 BA rendering providers who did not meet the criteria specified in the BA Handbook. In addition, the FAR informed Respondent that AHCA was seeking to impose a sanction of $2,500.00 pursuant to rule 59G-9.070(7)(c), and costs of $1,280.00 pursuant to section 409.913(23)(a). In sum, Petitioner asserted in the FAR that Respondent owed a total of $909,618.36. Kathy Herold is a Senior Pharmacist with AHCA’s MPI unit. In that capacity she assists with MPI audits. She compiles and analyzes data; applies appropriate rules, regulations, policies, and procedures to oversee the activities of Florida Medicaid providers to detect fraudulent or abusive behavior and minimize the neglect of recipients; recovers overpayments; imposes sanctions; and makes referrals as appropriate to the Florida Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, the Florida Department of Health, and the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation. She has over seventeen years’ experience in administrative investigations. She is a Certified Fraud Examiner. Ms. Herold re-reviewed the records provided by Respondent to determine whether the rendering providers for whom behavior analysis services were billed met the qualifications. AHCA did not place any limitations on how Respondent documented the qualifications of its rendering providers. AHCA’s only concern was whether the criteria were met. During the audit, and through the discovery process, Respondent supplied AHCA with copies of employment applications, resumes, letters of recommendation, and training certificates of the BAs in question. At the time of the final hearing, the qualifications of only 14 BAs remained in dispute and the amount sought in overpayment was calculated by AHCA as $237,802.50. Based on the competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence, AHCA demonstrated that the audit was properly conducted. RENDERING PROVIDERS AT ISSUE Eduardo Rodriguez The resume for Eduardo Rodriguez lists work with Abreu Quality (“Abreu”) from 2017 to “present.” It does not indicate a job title or reference any work with the target population in that job. There is no contact information that would have allowed Respondent the opportunity to verify the alleged work experience. The resume also lists “Private Case” work with a child with disabilities from 2010-2014 and 2016-2017. There is no contact information that would have allowed Respondent the opportunity to verify the alleged work experience. The application for Mr. Rodriguez, dated December 27, 2017, Mr. Rodriguez lists BA work with Abreu from February 2017 to “present” (December 27, 2017). While that listing (unlike the resume) contains contact information that would have allowed Respondent the opportunity to verify the alleged work experience, that work, even if verified, did not meet the requisite work experience as it was at most ten months. The application also lists two BA jobs for “Private Case.” There is no information provided that would have allowed Respondent the opportunity to verify the alleged work experience met the requisite work experience or the target population requirements. One private job was from 2010-2014 and the other was from 2016-2017 The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a letter of recommendation by Felicia Noval. That letter makes no reference to work with the target population. There is no indication who Ms. Noval is or how she knows Mr. Rodriguez. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a letter of recommendation by Jose Chao. However, that letter contains no indication of work with the target population. There is no indication of who Mr. Chao is or how he knows Mr. Rodriguez. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a background screening requested by Respondent. The background screening indicates that Mr. Rodriguez was not eligible to work with the target population until April 2017. Because Respondent requested the screening, it knew or should have known that Mr. Rodriguez did not have the requisite work experience. Based on conflicting information as to when Mr. Rodriguez worked at Abreu, Ms. Herold reviewed documentation submitted by Abreu to AHCA. This documentation indicates that Mr. Rodriguez only worked for them from May 18, 2017, to June 17, 2017. The documents submitted by Respondent to AHCA for Mr. Rodriguez contained training certificates for both the 20-hour BA course and the 40- hour RBT course. Mr. Rodriguez began working for Respondent on February 8, 2018. The last paid claim for Mr. Rodriguez was March 23, 2018. Based on the documentation provided by Respondent, Mr. Rodriguez did not have documented requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period, or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period. Despite Respondent having documentation that Mr. Rodriguez satisfied the training requirement, payments made by AHCA to Respondent for services billed for him are an overpayment because he did not have the requisite work experience or there is insufficient documentation that he had the requisite work experience. Fanny Vargas The application for Fanny Vargas, dated March 1, 2017, lists work as a BA/AHH for Children’s Home Services (“CHS”) from 2015-2017. There is no indication of how long Ms. Vargas performed each function. There is no indication of work with the target population in the job as an AHH. There is insufficient information to determine how long Ms. Vargas worked for CHS. The application did not provide sufficient information regarding whether Ms. Vargas had the requisite work experience. The resume for Ms. Vargas only lists BA work with CHS from 2015- “still working” (presumably March 1, 2017, the date of the application). There is still insufficient information on the resume to determine when Ms. Vargas began at CHS or if Ms. Vargas worked at CHS for over two years. The resume also lists “private service” for children with special needs from 2012- 2015. The “private service” job was not listed on the application. There is no contact information listed on the resume for the “private service” job that would have allowed anyone to verify it. The resume did not provide sufficient information regarding whether Ms. Vargas had the requisite work experience. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent indicate Ms. Vargas was not screened as a Medicaid Provider until January 14, 2017. She was enrolled as a Medicaid provider on April 4, 2017, effective January 9, 2017. She could not have provided services to the target population with CHS before then. The date of service for the last paid claim for Ms. Vargas is December 31, 2017. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Vargas had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period or by the end of the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Javier Collazo Veloz The application for Javier Collazo Veloz, dated May 4, 2017, lists work as Private Practice BA in Miami for Melissa Catano, from “08/01/2016–” (presumably May 4, 2017) and BA work for Fe y Alegria in Ecuador from March 9, 2015–April 3, 2016. Combined, those jobs do not satisfy the requisite work experience. The resume for Mr. Collazo Veloz only lists work as a BA for Fe y Alegria. However, on the resume the dates of employment are listed as July 1, 2013–July 1, 2015. Those dates conflict with the information Mr. Collazo Veloz listed on his application. Based on the conflict regarding the work with Fe y Alegria, Ms. Herold attempted to verify it. She located a website for Fe y Alegria, but the website makes no mention of work with the target population. The last paid claim for Mr. Collazo Veloz was February 16, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Mr. Collazo Veloz had the documented requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that he satisfied the training requirement. Jorge N. Bernal The application for Jorge N. Bernal, dated March 29, 2017, lists work as an x-ray technician from April 15, 2015, to July 17, 2015. There is no indication of work with the target population and the nature of that work would not contribute to the requisite work experience. Overlapping with the x-ray technician job, Mr. Bernal also lists he was a teacher at Jesus Para Todos from December 1, 2012, to March 15, 2016. The resume makes no mention of work with the target population associated with that job and there is no contact information on the application that Respondent could have used to verify the alleged work experience. The resume for Mr. Bernal only lists the teacher job at Jesus Para Todos, but there is no contact information to verify the employment. The resume indicates that job involved work with the target population. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained numerous documents indicating Mr. Bernal was born June 16, 1993. That means that Mr. Bernal was purportedly “teaching” when he was only 17. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent also contained an honor roll certificate which indicates that Mr. Bernal was attending college while purportedly “teaching.” The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent post-PAR contained a letter of reference from International Ministry of Jesus for All (“Jesus Para Todos”) dated March 19, 2019. That letter does not clearly corroborate that Mr. Bernal was teaching there. The letter from Jesus Para Todos indicated it was a church, not a school. The letter further indicates that Mr. Bernal “was able to serve to the kid’s ministry and youth groups, teaching kids and youth and serving in our community, and participate in helping special need kids in our church.” Mr. Bernal began work for Respondent on November 7, 2017. The last paid claim for Mr. Bernal is February 17, 2018. Thus, not only could the letter from Jesus Para Todos not have been used to verify work in the hiring process, it also was not created until after the audit period and almost one year after the end of Mr. Bernal’s employment with Respondent. Given the conflicting information regarding Jesus Para Todos, Ms. Herold attempted to verify the facility. She discovered there was no online presence for the facility, and it was not listed in the State’s database of private schools or licensed daycares. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Mr. Bernal had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that he satisfied the training requirement. Leyanis Morffi The application for Leyanis Morffi, dated June 30, 2017, lists two cashier jobs. The nature of that work would not contribute to the requisite work experience. The application also lists work as a paid childcare worker at Smiles Childcare from October 2014 to November 2016. However, there is no mention of work with the target population at that job. The resume for Ms. Morffi lists the same work experience that was listed on the application. Again, there is no reference to work with the target population at the childcare job. The resume further indicates that Ms. Morffi “specializes in homes for the elderly and youth detention facilities.” However, there is no listing of that type of work on the application or resume. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a background screening requested by Respondent. The screening indicates that Ms. Morffi was not eligible to work with the target population until February 2017. Because Respondent requested the screening, it knew or should have known that Ms. Morffi did not have the requisite work experience. Documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a letter of reference dated September 5, 2017, from Lazaro Noel Suarez. That letter is dated post-hire and was provided to AHCA post-PAR. It references one year of BA work. However, it provides no specific dates or date range, and contains no contact information that could be used to verify the information. Neither the application nor the resume indicates any BA work prior to Respondent to which this letter could correlate. Documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a letter of reference dated July 30, 2017, from Doris Jimenez. That letter is dated post- hire and was provided to AHCA post-PAR. It makes no reference to work with the target population. It makes no mention of the relationship between Ms. Morffi and Ms. Jimenez. The letter does not indicate where the work was performed. Documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contain a letter of reference dated April 5, 2018. The author is unknown as the signature is illegible. That letter is dated post-hire and was provided to AHCA post-PAR. It references work at Smiles Childcare from October 2014 to May 2017. While the letter mentions work with the target population, there is no way to determine who wrote the letter or the author’s relationship to Ms. Morffi. The letter contains no contact information that could be used to verify the information. The dates of service in the letter conflict with the dates of service listed by Ms. Morffi in her application and resume. The letter indicates that Ms. Morffi was a volunteer, while her application indicates she earned $10.00 per hour. While volunteer work would count toward requisite work experience, the conflicting information undermines the credibility of both this letter and the information provided by Ms. Morffi. Based on the conflicting information regarding Smiles Childcare, Ms. Herold attempted to verify the information. Smiles Childcare had no internet website and was not listed by the State as a childcare facility. The last paid claim for Ms. Morffi is March 16, 2018. Not only could the April 5, 2018, letter not have been used to verify work in the hiring process, it also was not created until after the audit period and over two weeks after the end of Ms. Morffi’s employment with Respondent. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Morffi had the documented requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Luigui Melendez Tijerino The application for Luigui Melendez Tijerino, dated January 30, 2017, lists overlapping work as a Pharmacy Tech at Walmart from June 2012 to “present” (presumably the date of the application) and as a food prepper at Wendy’s from October 2013 to June 2014. There is no indication of work with the target population and the nature of those jobs would not contribute to the requisite work experience. Overlapping with the Pharmacy technician job, Mr. Melendez Tijerino also listed BA work with ABA Pro Support Services (“ABA Pro Support”) from May 2015 to January 31, 2017. The resume for Mr. Melendez Tijerino lists the same jobs as indicated on the application and also lists work as a server at “The Chelsea” from April 2011 to September 2013. There is no indication of work with the target population and the nature of that job would not contribute to the requisite work experience. Documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contain a background screening requested by Respondent. The screening indicates that Mr. Melendez Tijerino was not eligible to work with the target population until October 2016. Because Respondent requested the screening, it knew or should have known that Mr. Melendez Tijerino did not have the requisite work experience. Documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contain an undated letter of reference from Xochilt Povsic.3 That letter was provided to AHCA post-PAR. That letter references work with the target population, but it does not mention any dates that would allow anyone to determine if it satisfied the requisite work experience. The letter does not mention where the BA services were allegedly performed, and the only indication of BA work on Mr. Melendez Tijerino’s application and resume was at ABA Pro Support. Based on the conflicting information regarding work at ABA Pro Support, Ms. Herold looked further into the matter. In response to the letter sent to ABA Pro Support for the BA statewide review, ABA Pro Support advised that Mr. Melendez Tijerino was never an employee. That information was provided to AHCA on January 12, 2018. 3 Ms. Povsic is another rendering provider at issue in the audit. Ms. Povsic may be or may have been related to Mr. Melendez Tijerino as the documents submitted by Respondent for her indicate she used to be called Xochilt Tijerino. Documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contain a letter of reference dated September 23, 2016, from Walmart, that was provided to AHCA post-PAR. That letter does not reference work with the target population and the nature of the job would not contribute to the requisite work experience. Mr. Melendez Tijerino began working for Respondent on November 1, 2017. The last paid claim for Mr. Melendez Tijerino was January 27, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Mr. Melendez Tijerino had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that he satisfied the training requirement. Maria Oduber The application for Maria Oduber, dated November 29, 2017, lists “young care worker” with “Loyal Resource/CHS” from August 2015 to March 2017. There is no mention of work with the target population associated with that job. Overlapping with that job, the application lists work as client support with HOPWA Housing from March 2010 to January 2017. The application also lists work as an ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) teacher at Greystone Elementary School and as a theater teacher in “Caracas.” There is no indication of work with the target population and the nature of those jobs would not contribute to the requisite work experience. The resume for Ms. Oduber listed the same jobs as listed on the application. There was still no mention of work with the target population for any of those jobs. Ms. Oduber began working for Respondent on January 2, 2018. The last paid claim for Ms. Oduber was March 17, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Oduber had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Mey Weiss Rodriquez The application for Mey Weiss Rodriguez is dated October 4, 2017, on the front and October 10, 2017, on the back. The application lists work as an assistant at Eliseo Reyes School in “S. Spiritus, Cuba,” from September 2010 to December 2014. There is no mention of work with the target population associated with the job. The application also lists work at Provincial Veterinary Laboratory from August 1997 to August 2010. There is no indication of work with the target population and the nature of that job would not contribute to the requisite work experience. The resume submitted for Ms. Weiss Rodriguez lists the same work on the application, but with less specific information regarding dates, and no information regarding location or contact information. Contrary to the application, work with the target population is listed for Eliseo Reyes School. The resume also claims that Ms. Weiss Rodriguez is an RBT even though Respondent stipulated that none of the rendering providers at issue obtained an RBT by January 1, 2019. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a letter of recommendation dated October 4, 2017, from Carmen Yebra. The letter was provided to AHCA post-PAR and makes no mention of work with the target population. Due to the conflict regarding whether there was work with the target population, and the fact there was no documentation of independent verification of that matter, Ms. Herold attempted to verify the work experience. No search engine provided a listing for Eliseo Reyes School and Google Maps, while providing detailed information on Sancti Spiritus, Cuba, indicated the address listed on the application does not exist. The last paid claim for Ms. Weiss Rodriguez was March 17, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Weiss Rodriguez had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period, or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Sorelys Ferros On her application dated March 14, 2017, Sorelys Ferros lists work as an RBT with MHB Consultants Group (“MHB”) beginning in December 2015 with no end date listed. However, Respondent stipulated that none of the rendering providers at issue obtained an RBT by January 1, 2019. The resume for Ms. Ferros lists the job at MHB and also lists work at Respondent from March 2017 to present. On her resume, Ms. Ferros also indicates that she obtained her RBT certification in December 2015. However, as indicated above, Respondent stipulated that none of the rendering providers at issue obtained an RBT by January 1, 2019. Documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contain a background screening requested by Respondent. The screening indicates that Ms. Ferros was not eligible to work with the target population until June 2016. As such, she could not have obtained her RBT certification by December 2015. Because Respondent requested the screening, it knew or should have known that Ms. Ferros did not have the requisite work experience and that she was not actually an RBT. The last paid claim for Ms. Ferros was February 2, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Ferros had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period, or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Teresita Rodriguez The application for Teresita Rodriguez, dated August 10, 2017, lists two jobs as an HHA-BA,4 one with Gifted Health Group, Inc. (“Gifted”), from January 2010 to February 2014, and the other with Nory’s Home Services, Inc. (“Nory’s”), from February 2014 to April 2015. There is no indication of how long Ms. Rodriguez worked in the capacity of an HHA versus as a BA at either job. There is no indication of work with the target population in the HHA job at Gifted or Nory’s. The application also listed work as an HHA at Homecare for Neighborhood Home Health (“Neighborhood”) from April 2015 to “actual” (presumably, the date of the application, August 10, 2017). There is no mention of work with the target population in the job with Neighborhood. The resume for Ms. Rodriguez, lists the same jobs listed on the application; however, the work with Neighborhood is listed on the resume as HHA-BA, and not HHA Homecare. The resume provides more description for each job, and only the job at Gifted describes work with the target population. Documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contain a background screening requested by Respondent. The screening indicates that Ms. Rodriguez was not eligible to work with the target population until September 2015. Based on the screening, Ms. Rodriguez could not have worked with the target population at Nory’s, Neighborhood, or Gifted before then. Because Respondent requested the screening, it knew or should have known that Ms. Rodriguez did not have the requisite work experience. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained an undated letter of reference from Josie Vallejo. That letter does not reference any work with the target population but specifically mentions work with Ms. Vallejo’s mother, a senior, although it does not provide any dates. The letter mentioned that Ms. Vallejo had been a friend of Ms. Rodriguez for six years. 4 Presumably, “HHA” as used in applications and on resumes of rendering providers stands for Home Health Aide. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contain an undated letter of reference from Danitza Montero. The letter from Ms. Montero states Ms. Rodriguez cared for Ms. Montero’s son, but does not indicate the son was a member of the target population. Ms. Rodriguez began working for Respondent on December 26, 2017. There is no documentation indicating that Ms. Rodriguez worked for Gifted past August 10, 2017. The last paid claim for Ms. Rodriguez was March 17, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Rodriguez had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period, or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Xochilt Povsic The application for Xochilt Povsic, dated January 31, 2017, states she worked as a membership coordinator for Sam’s Club, and a dietary aide at Bentley Commons at Paragon Village in New Jersey. There is no indication of work with the target population at either job, and the nature of those jobs would not contribute to the requisite work experience. Overlapping the dietary aide job, on her application Ms. Povsic also indicates work as a BA at two private practice/personal care jobs. Ms. Povsic states she worked for Maria Mora from August 2013 to June 2015 and that she worked for Miriam Ponzano from September 2014 to December 2015. The resume for Ms. Povsic listed the same jobs and dates as listed on the application and also listed another dietary aide job with Fellowship Village in New Jersey. The resume contains descriptions of the type of work performed at each job. There is no mention of work with the target population at either dietary aide job or in the job at Sam’s Club, and those jobs would not be of the type to contribute to the requisite work experience. The work for Ms. Mora was described by Ms. Povsic as providing BA services from August 2013 to June 2015 to a “3-4 [year old child]” with autism, ADHD, and behavior disorders. The work for Ms. Ponzano was described by Ms. Povsic as providing BA services from September 2014 to December 2015 to twin boys, “1-2 years old” with behavior disorders and ADHD. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a letter from Miriam Ponzano that is not dated and was provided to AHCA post-PAR. While Ms. Ponzano confirms that Ms. Povsic cared for her boys, there is no indication that the children were part of the target population or that any work performed contributed to the requisite work experience. In addition, the dates of service listed by Ms. Ponzano conflict with the dates listed by Ms. Povsic. Ms. Ponzano indicated the Ms. Povsic cared for her sons from November 2015 to March 2016, not September 2014 to December 2015, as had been asserted by Ms. Povsic on her application and resume. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent also contained a letter from Maria Mora, that is not dated, and was provided to AHCA post- PAR. Ms. Mora did not confirm that Ms. Povsic had cared for her 3 to 4-year- old son with autism, ADHD, and behavior disorders, as Ms. Povsic had indicated. Rather, Ms. Mora’s letter indicates that Ms. Povsic was her caretaker, performing personal tasks such as picking up medicines and buying groceries. Ms. Mora does not indicate that she is part of the target population and the services listed are not of the type to contribute to the requisite work experience. In addition, the dates of service listed by Ms. Mora conflict with the dates listed by Ms. Povsic. Ms. Mora indicates that Ms. Povsic cared for her during the winter of 2014 to 2015 (even mentioning that Ms. Povsic shoveled snow for her), not August 2013 to June 2015, as had been indicated by Ms. Povsic on her application and resume. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a letter from Maydelis Cruz. The letter is not dated and was provided to AHCA post- PAR. Ms. Cruz indicates she has known Ms. Povsic for 20 years. Ms. Cruz indicates that Ms. Povsic assisted with her son, who has Down Syndrome, from November 2011 to March 2013. Ms. Povsic would only have been 17 years old at that time. The last paid claim for Ms. Povsic was March 17, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Xochilt Povsic had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period, or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Yaima Alvarez The application for Yaima Alvarez, dated August 10, 2017, listed two overlapping HHA jobs: “Faith,” from July 2016 to “present” (presumably August 10, 2017, the date of the application); and Home Health Solutions, from June 2017 to present (August 10, 2017). There is no indication of work with the target population for either job. The resume for Ms. Alvarez lists no work experience, but has listings under “Professional Affiliations” that appear to be a work history. Faith Health Care, Inc., is listed with dates that correspond to the listing for Faith on the application. There is no mention of a job title or work with the target population regarding Faith Health Care, Inc. Solutions Group, Inc., is also listed under “Professional Affiliations.” As with Faith Health Care, Inc., there is no mention of her job title or work with the target population. That listing does not appear to be the same job that is listed as Home Health Solutions on the resume as the dates do not correspond. There is no indication of work with the target population for Faith Health Care, Inc., or Solutions Group, Inc. There is also a listing for “L.G. (R.B.T. patient).” However, as indicated before, Respondent stipulated that none of the rendering providers at issue obtained an RBT by January 1, 2019. Ms. Alvarez began working for Respondent on December 12, 2017. The last paid claim for Ms. Alvarez was February 8, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Alvarez had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Yudisley Garces The application for Yudisley Garces, dated April 20, 2017, lists overlapping CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) jobs. One was with AAA Home Health Service (“AAA”) from June 2014 to today (April 20, 2017) and the other is with Alma Care, Inc. (“Alma Care”), from August 2015 to “today” (presumably the date of the application, April 20, 2017). There is no indication of work with the target population for either job. The resume for Ms. Garces only lists the job for AAA. However, the dates listed on the resume for that job (beginning June 2014) conflict with the dates listed on the application (beginning February 2014). There is no indication of work with the target population associated with that job. The resume also listed two jobs (one at a hospital in Cuba and the other at a hospital in Venezuela) performing puncture aspiration biopsies and cervical cancer diagnoses. There is no mention of work with the target population at either of those hospital jobs, and those jobs would not be of the type to contribute to the requisite work experience. The last paid claim for Ms. Garces was March 17, 2018. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Garces had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period, or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period, or that she satisfied the training requirement. Zerelys Lauzerique The resume for Zerelys Lauzerique lists work with “Lenin & Daughter” and Ignite Christian Academy (“Ignite”). There is no indication of work with the target population regarding the job at Ignite. It also lists work as a fitness coach with Beach Body, as a Youth Pastor at Cross Church, and as an Assistant Director at Flames of Fire Bible School (“Flames of Fire”), that is not listed on the application. The Beach Body work overlaps the BA work with Lenin & Daughter. There is no indication of working with the target population associated with the jobs at Beach Body, Cross Church, or Flames of Fire, and those jobs would not be of the type to contribute to the requisite work experience. The application for Ms. Lauzerique, dated December 4, 2017, lists work as a BA with Lenin & Daughter from December 2016 to “current” (presumably the date of the application, December 4, 2017) and as a Teacher Assistant with Ignite from August 2014 to August 2015. There is no mention of work with the target population regarding the job at Ignite. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent contained a letter of reference dated December 5, 2016, from Melanie Reyes, a “close friend.” The letter from Ms. Reyes does not indicate any work with the target population and instead pertains to Ms. Lauzerique’s work at Beach Body. The documents submitted to AHCA by Respondent also contained a letter of reference dated December 2016 from Reverend Abram Gomez of Cross Church. The letter indicates that he worked with Ms. Lauzerique for two years, but does not indicate any work with the target population. Ms. Lauzerique began working for Respondent on December 11, 2017. The last paid claim for Ms. Lauzerique was January 6, 2018. The documents submitted by Respondent to AHCA for Ms. Lauzerique contained training certificates for both the 20-hour BA course and the 40-hour RBT course. The documents provided by Respondent to AHCA during the audit and during litigation did not substantiate that Ms. Lauzerique had the requisite work experience at the time of hire, at the beginning of the audit period, or by the end of the last paid claim in the audit period. Respondent's Response The owner of Hour Bliss, Inc., Mr. Perez-Delgado, testified on behalf of Respondent. He is a Board-Certified Behavior Analyst, has a master’s certification in addiction, and is a Licensed Mental Health Counselor. Mr. Perez-Delgado testified that Respondent served populations in Miami that no other company would because of the crime. Mr. Perez-Delgado said that when he enrolled Respondent as a BA provider, many of the rendering providers he hired had worked at other companies where he had also worked, and because of this, he believed they met the qualifications required to serve as BAs. Mr. Perez-Delgado testified that he provided records he thought were relevant to the Medicaid investigation beginning in August 2017, and again in January 2018 and April 2019. If there had been a problem, he would have liked AHCA to institute a corrective action plan. However, he alleges the next communication from AHCA was terminating his Medicaid provider number without cause. Later, he received notice of the audit. Much of the testimony from Mr. Perez-Delgado concerned events that occurred prior to the audit beginning in November 2018, and the issuance of the PAR and FAR in 2019. These events are obviously related to the pre-payment review or other matters with AHCA, and not the audit. Mr. Perez-Delgado testified that several of his rendering providers were parents of children with autism or ADHD. Accordingly, they had more than the requisite experience with the target population. However, he did not document that in the files provided to the Agency. Nor did he timely provide records demonstrating that these same workers met the training requirement. Mr. Perez-Delgado offered no information regarding how or whether he verified prior work experience of these BAs in question. ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT In this case, AHCA presented credible, persuasive evidence establishing that the audit giving rise to this proceeding was properly conducted. AHCA obtained and reviewed records from Respondent, issued a PAR, reviewed additional records submitted after the PAR, issued the FAR, and even then continued to review records and consider evidenced that, by giving Respondent the benefit of the doubt whenever possible, further reduced the overpayment. In this audit, AHCA examined the records provided by Respondent to determine if it maintained business records and Medicaid-related records establishing that its rendering providers met the qualifications set forth in the BA Handbook. The BA Handbook required no special documentation. Respondent, as are all providers who contract to provide Medicaid services, was required to keep contemporaneous records regarding entitlement to payment, including employment eligibility, and compliance with all Medicaid rules, regulations, handbooks, and policies. Respondent failed to provide AHCA with documentation that its rendering providers met the qualifications set forth in the BA Handbook. Of the 14 BA providers in dispute, 12 lacked any documentation of the requisite work experience with the target population and meeting the training requirement. Only two BAs, Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Lazerique, met the training requirements, but did not meet the required work experience with the target population.
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 incorporating the terms of this Recommended Order as follows: AHCA overpaid Respondent the sum of $237,802.50 for BA services and Respondent must reimburse the Agency for those payments. AHCA is entitled to an administrative sanction in the amount of $2,500.00. AHCA, as the prevailing party in this proceeding, is entitled to recover, from Respondent, costs including all investigative, legal, and expert witness costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 27th day of April, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Julio Cesar Perez-Delgado Hour Bliss, Inc. Apartment 406 888 Brickell Key Drive Miami, Florida 33131 (eServed) Susan Sapoznikoff, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Kimberly Murray, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Stefan Grow, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Mary C. Mayhew, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Shena L. Grantham, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Room 3407B 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Thomas M. Hoeler, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") Rules 10- and 10-17.005 (originally published as 10-16.001, 10-16.005), Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Standing Humana is a corporation engaged in the business of constructing and operating hospitals in Florida. It has applied to HRS for a certificate of need to construct and operate a 100-bed acute care hospital to be located south of the St. Johns River in the area known as Mandarin, in Duval County, Florida. The challenged Subdistrict Rule places this area in Subdistrict 3 of HRS District IV. Humana's (Mandarin) application for a certificate of need (CON) was denied by HRS on February 23, 1983, and Humana requested a formal Section 120.57(1), hearing. The case was then transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case Number 83-934. The final hearing in that CON case began on September 6, 1983, and recessed on September 7, 1983. In the instant case--on Humana's request, and without objection by HRS--official recognition was given to the transcript of that hearing, as filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Prior to the CON hearing in Case Number 83-934, on August 12, 1983, HRS published proposed Rules 10-16.001 and 10-16.005 ("Subdistrict Rule") at Volume 9, Number 32, pages 1952 through 1957, Florida Administrative Weekly. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1) After the CON hearing recessed, and after a public hearing on the proposed Subdistrict Rule, HRS published changes to the rule on September 23, 1983, at Volume 9, No. 38, page 2475-2476, Florida Administrative Weekly. These changes were made in response to comments which HRS received at a public hearing held on the proposed rule. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2) On September 26, 1983, HRS filed the Subdistrict Rule with the Department of State for adoption, effective October 16, 1983. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3) Thereafter, the Bureau of Administrative Code, Department of State, informed HRS that since other rules were already numbered in Chapter 10-16, Florida Administrative Code, the Subdistrict Rule would be published in Chapter 10-17, Florida Administrative Code. (Petitioner'S Exhibit No. 28) At the CON hearing, Humana attempted to introduce evidence which HRS challenged as inconsistent with Rule 10-5.11(23) the state-wide acute care bed- need rule, and the Subdistrict Rule--then a proposed rule not yet adopted by HRS. The presiding hearing officer, acknowledging the "proposed rule" status of the Subdistrict Rule, sustained HRS objections to the admission of evidence proposing a methodology, or subdistrict bed-need allocations, inconsistent with those contained in the (proposed) Subdistrict Rule. He did, however, rule that the two non-agency parties could offer evidence for the purpose of showing that HRS, or the local health council in conjunction with HRS, had developed bed-need formula or techniques for subdistricts beyond, or inconsistent with, the proposed Subdistrict Rule and the underlying local health council's district plan. (DOAH Case No. 83-934, pp. 220-221, Transcript of Hearing). II. The Rule Adoption Process In response to Section 381.494(7)(b), Florida Statutes (1983), requiring local health councils to develop district plans using a "uniform methodology," HRS transmitted to the councils written guidelines for designating and allocating bed-need among various subdistricts. (Petitioner's Exhibit Dos. 9 and 10) The statute does not express or imply that the word, "methodology" should be given a meaning other than that assigned by ordinary and common usage. Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary defines the term as: "a body of methods, rules and postulates; a particular procedure or set of procedures." A methodology is not necessarily a mathematical formula. These guidelines, transmitted to the local health councils in early 1983, describe the relationship between HRS and the councils, the format and content elements of district health plans, and the requirements for stating district health care policies and priorities. Examples are provided. The guidelines require that local plans contain a district health profile--an overview of the area's population characteristics, community health status and prevailing health related attitudes and behaviors. Components are also required, including detailed information on the district's health care resource inventories, costs and utilization patterns, analysis of local services as well as recommendations and priorities for future health systems development. For at least three types of existing health care facilities--acute care hospitals, nursing homes, and psychiatric specialty hospitals information must be provided on current capacity, physical status, service areas, and recommendations for future developments. A time frame is imposed for accomplishing each phase of the plan development, with the final phase adoption of the local health plan--to be accomplished by December, 1983. Finally, the guidelines, at page 15, point out the statutory requirement that HRS adopt, by rule, those elements of the approved district plans necessary for review of applications for certificates of need: Adoption Into Rules Section 7(b) of Chapter 381.493 states that "Elements of an approved district plan necessary to the review of any certificate of need application shall be adopted by the Department as a part of its rules." This should be kept in mind through- out the plan development process. Local policies and priorities are the items most pertinent to certificate of need review since information on bed need and capacity are either determined at the state level or must be updated to the time of certificate of need application, review and appeal. There- fore, the local health council will be ex- pected to develop a separate submission of their policies and priorities in the proper format for rule promulgation within thirty days of the adoption of the local health plan. State agency staff will assist in the development and refinement of these documents. (Petitioner'S Exhibit No. 9) HRS interpreted its responsibility under Section 381.494, as one of assuring that district health plans were consistent with the state-wide uniform bed-need methodology prescribed in Rule 10-5.11(23). Under subparagraph "d" of that rule, local health plans must designate subdistricts according to HRS guidelines. Subparagraph "e" requires that beds be allocated to designated subdistricts consistent with the total number of beds allocated to the district under the rule, and consistent with subparagraph "i," which contains geographic accessibility standards. Rule 10-5.11(23) * * * * * Acute Care Service Subdistrict Designation. Acute care service sub- district designations shall be adopted, as necessary, by each Local Health Council as an element of its local health plan according to guidelines developed by the State Health Planning Agency. Designations will become effective for the purposes of this rule upon the filing of the adopted local health plan acute care subdistricting elements with the Secretary of State. Subdistrict Bed Allocations. Subdistrict bed allocations by type of service shall be made by the Local Health Councils consistent with the district total acute care bed allocation as determined by the methodology contained in paragraph (f) below, as well as any adjustments to the allocation as determined by the provisions of paragraphs and (h) below. Such allocations shall also be consistent with the provisions 9f paragraph (i) and the requirements of Section 381.494(7)(b) , Florida Statutes. * * * * * Geographic Accessibility Considerations. Acute care hospital beds should be available and accessible within an automobile travel time of 30 minutes under average travel conditions to at least 90 percent of the population residing in an urban area subdistrict. Acute care hospital beds should be available and accessible within a maximum automobile travel time of 45 minutes under average travel conditions to at least 90 percent of the population residing in a rural area sub- district. The elements of the District IV health plan contained in the Sub- district Rule are consistent with the uniform methodology prescribed in Rule 10-5.11(23) and HRS guidelines. In response to these guidelines, the District IV health council adopted and transmitted to HRS, on July 7, 1983, the acute care component of the district health plan. After the district council approved this component and allocated beds to the various subdistricts, HRS supplied updated population figures resulting in an increase in the total number of beds allocated to the district. The council's staff then adjusted the number of beds allocated to the subdistricts on a pro rata basis. These adjustments were consistent with the council's policy, as reflected by its approval of the acute care component. No evidence has been presented to show that the council's staff lacked authority to make these adjustments. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7) In addition to allocating district wide bed-need among the subdistricts of District IV, the acute care component contains detailed information and analysis concerning acute care bed-need. This information is pertinent but not necessary to the review of CON applications in District IV. (Petitioner's Exhibit No 7) The challenged Subdistrict Rule simply designates subdistricts and allocates bed-need among them; other data and analysis contained in the acute care component are not included. HRS, however, is now drafting an addition to the Subdistrict Rule (Section 10-17.005), titled "subsection (3), Acute Care Policies and Priorities," which incorporates additional portions of the district plan for use in reviewing CON applications in District IV. This draft rule allows exceptions based on local conditions: When there are more than one widely separated hospital service areas located within a single subdistrict, such as St. Augustine in South Duval Subdistrict 3, Bunnell and Daytona Beach in Subdistrict 4, and unforeseen growth, change and makeup of population, or other circumstances cause a significant increase in the demand for inpatient care within one of the service areas, the State should make exception to the District Health Plan when it is reasonable and logical to do so. (Petitioner'S Exhibit No. 34) This provision was contained in the district plan at the time HRS adopted the Subdistrict Rule. (Petitioner'S Exhibit No. 7) The Subdistrict Rule, with the exception of St. Lukes' Hospital, allocates beds among the subdistricts on the basis of the number of patient-days currently utilized by the hospitals in each subdistrict, projected for 1988. St. Lukes' Hospital, now located on the north side of the St. John's River in Subdistrict 1, will move to the south side of the St. John's River in Subdistrict 3, the subdistrict where Humana seeks to build its Mandarin hospital. This move from north to south is accounted in the subdistrict allocation by assuming that 34 percent of the current (north) St. Lukes' Hospital patient-days will come with the hospital when it moves from Subdistrict 1 to Subdistrict 3, and that the remainder will come from Subdistrict 3 (south) patients. With 66 percent of St. Lukes' bed capacity allocated for Subdistrict 3, there will be no additional bed-need in that subdistrict for years. HRS prepared an economic impact statement (EIS) in connection with its adoption of the subdistrict rules, including the Subdistrict Rule under challenge. The EIS addresses the agency's cost to implement the proposed rules, the cost or economic benefit to persons directly affected, and the affect on competition. The data and methods used in preparing the EIS are also briefly summarized.
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency or AHCA) is entitled to recover certain Medicaid funds paid to Lee Memorial Health System, d/b/a Lee Memorial Hospital (Respondent or Lee Memorial), for services provided to undocumented aliens: between January 1 through December 31, 2006, as alleged in AHCA’s Amended Final Audit Report, dated July 25, 2014 (DOAH Case 14-4171); and January 1 through December 31, 2007, as alleged in AHCA’s Final Audit Report, dated March 12, 2015 (DOAH Case 15-3271).
Findings Of Fact THE PARTICIPANTS Lee Memorial was, at all relevant times, an enrolled Medicaid provider authorized to receive reimbursement for covered goods and services provided to Medicaid recipients. As an enrolled provider, Lee Memorial’s participation in the Florida Medicaid Program is subject to the terms of the Medicaid Provider Agreement. The Florida Medicaid Program requires compliance with all state and federal laws governing the Medicaid program, including the state and federal laws limiting Medicaid payments for services provided to aliens. As indicated, the Agency is the single state agency responsible for administering or supervising the administration of the Florida Medicaid Program (Medicaid). § 409.901(15), Fla. Stat. PRELIMINARY: FLORIDA MEDICAID PROGRAM Section 409.901(16), Florida Statutes, provides that the Medicaid program is “authorized under Title XIX of the federal Social Security Act which provides for payments for medical items or services, or both, on behalf of any person who is determined by the Department of Children and Families, or, for Supplemental Security Income, by the Social Security Administration, to be eligible on the date of service for Medicaid assistance.” The Medicaid program is jointly funded by the federal government and the individual states that have elected to participate in the program, of which Florida is one. Federal payments to the states for a portion of the cost of Medicaid are referred to as federal financial participation (FFP). AHCA administers the Medicaid program. AHCA is authorized to make payments to Medicaid providers for medical assistance and related services under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. However, in order to receive Medicaid assistance, the Department of Children and Families (DCF) must determine the eligibility of applicants for that assistance. Pursuant to section 409.902(1), DCF has adopted Florida Administrative Code Rule 65A-1.715 which addresses Medicaid eligibility for aliens. This rule provides: Aliens who would be eligible for Medicaid but for their immigration status are eligible only for emergency medical services. Section 409.901(10) F.S., defines emergency medical conditions. The Utilization Review Committee (URC) or medical provider will determine if the medical condition warrants emergency medical services and, if so, the projected duration of the emergency medical condition. The projected duration of the emergency medical condition will be the eligibility period provided that all other criteria are continuously satisfied. Emergency services are limited to 30 consecutive days without prior approval. For continued coverage beginning with the 31st day prior authorization must be obtained from the Agency for Health Care Administration (Medicaid Program Office). [Emphasis added]. The eligibility period for alien recipients is also described in rule 65A-1.702, which states: (2) Date of Eligibility. The date eligibility for Medicaid begins. This was formerly called the date of entitlement. The date of eligibility includes the three months immediately preceding the month of application (called the retroactive period). Eligibility for Medicaid begins the first day of a month if an individual was eligible any time during the month, with the following exceptions: * * * (c) Coverage for individuals eligible for the Emergency Medicaid for Aliens program begins the first day of a covered emergency and ends the day following the last day of the emergency medical situation. [Emphasis added]. DCF is performing an administrative function, solely to determine if the alien is eligible to receive medical assistance. DCF does not determine the duration of the emergency medical condition. DCF does not make a clinical medical determination regarding any patient because it does not have medical professionals to verify the information received. DCF has the dates of eligibility, but AHCA determines which bills are paid. AHCA relies on licensed medical physicians to determine the duration of the emergency medical services. Undocumented aliens do not qualify to receive full Medicaid benefits. As detailed in Agency handbooks, the aid is limited to the treatment of an emergency medical condition up to the point that condition has been alleviated. According to section 409.902(2), Medicaid eligibility is restricted to U.S. citizens and lawfully admitted noncitizens who meet the criteria provided in section 414.095(3), Florida Statute.4/ The criteria mean that undocumented or illegal aliens are generally not eligible for Medicaid assistance. All of the claims in dispute in this case involve payments on behalf of undocumented noncitizens who will be referred to herein as "aliens." As an exception to the general rule, episodic eligibility is available to an alien who is either pregnant or seeking "services [which] are necessary to treat an emergency medical condition." § 409.902(2)(b), Fla. Stat. "The eligibility of . . . a recipient [who meets all other requirements for Medicaid eligibility except citizenship and who is in need of emergency medical services] is limited to the period of the emergency, in accordance with federal regulations." § 409.904(4), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). An alien is eligible for medical assistance only if he has an "emergency medical condition" requiring "emergency medical services"--and then only for those services "necessary to treat [the] emergency medical condition" that are provided during the "period of the emergency," the conclusion of which terminates the alien's eligibility. The term "emergency medical condition" (EMC) is defined in section 409.901(10)(a) as: A medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity, which may include severe pain or other acute symptoms, such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in any of the following: Serious jeopardy to the health of a patient, including a pregnant woman or a fetus. Serious impairment to bodily functions. Serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part. Section 409.901(11) provides the following definition of “emergency services and care”: [M]edical screening, examination, and evaluation by a physician, or, to the extent permitted by applicable laws, by other appropriate personnel under the supervision of a physician, to determine whether an emergency medical condition exists and, if it does, the care, treatment, or surgery for a covered service by a physician which is necessary to relieve or eliminate the emergency medical condition, within the service capability of a hospital. Section 409.904(4) provides: A low-income person who meets all other requirements for Medicaid eligibility except citizenship and who is in need of emergency medical services. The eligibility of such a recipient is limited to the period of the emergency, in accordance with federal regulations. Section 409.905(5) has, since 2005, consistently provided that AHCA shall pay for “all covered services provided for the medical care and treatment of a recipient” admitted as an inpatient by a licensed physician to a licensed hospital. However, covered payments can be determined by the patients’ physical condition. AHCA is authorized to “conduct or cause to be conducted . . . reviews, investigation, analyses, audits, or any combination thereof, to determine possible fraud, abuse, overpayment, . . . in the Medicaid program and shall report the findings of any overpayments in audit reports as appropriate . . . . Medical necessity determination requires that service be consistent with symptoms or confirmed diagnosis of illness or injury under treatment and not in excess of the patient’s needs.” § 409.913(2), Fla. Stat. Section 409.913(1)(e) defines “overpayment” to mean “any amount that is not authorized to be paid by the Medicaid program whether paid as a result of inaccurate or improper cost reporting, improper claiming, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse, or mistake.” As found in section 409.913(1)(a)1, “abuse” means “[p]rovider practices that are inconsistent with generally accepted business or medical practices and that result in an unnecessary cost to the Medicaid program or in reimbursement for goods or services that are not medically necessary or that fail to meet professionally recognized standards of health care.” Further, under section 409.913(5), a Medicaid provider “is subject to having goods and services that are paid for by the Medicaid program reviewed by an appropriate peer-review organization designated by the agency. The written findings of the applicable peer-review organization are admissible in any court or administrative proceeding as evidence of medical necessity or the lack thereof.” AHCA has authority to “adopt any rules necessary to comply with or administer ss. 409.901-409.920 and all rules necessary to comply with federal requirements.” § 409.919, Fla. Stat. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-4.160 provides that all enrolled hospital providers must comply with the provisions of the Florida Medicaid Hospital Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook. As found on page 2 through 7 of this handbook: The Medicaid Hospital Services Program reimburses for emergency services provided to aliens who meet all Medicaid eligibility requirements except for citizenship or alien status. Eligibility can be authorized only for the duration of the emergency. Medicaid will not pay for continuous or episodic services after the emergency has been alleviated. Dialysis is considered an emergency service. [Emphasis added]. Rule 59G-5.020 provided for the use of the Florida Medicaid Provider Handbook. On page 3 through 22 under the heading, “Emergency: Medicaid for Aliens,” it provides: Eligibility can be authorized only for the duration of the emergency. Medicaid will not pay for continuous or episodic services after the emergency has been alleviated. All claims must be accompanied by documentation of the emergency nature of the service. Exceptions are labor, delivery, and dialysis services. These are considered emergencies and are payable without documentation when the emergency indicator is entered on the claim form. [Emphasis added]. CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS In 2009, the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), conducted a “Review of Florida’s Medicaid Payments for Emergency Services to Undocumented Aliens” (review). The review was directed to AHCA for the purpose of determining “whether AHCA’s billing for emergency medical services to undocumented aliens in the State of Florida complies with applicable Federal statutes and CMS’ regulations.” One of the review’s findings was that “AHCA is claiming FFP for emergency medical services to undocumented aliens provided beyond what Federal statutes and regulations define to be an emergency.” CMS recommended that “AHCA should review all emergency services for undocumented alien amounts claimed for FFP during Federal Fiscal Years 2005, 2006, and 2007 and re-determine allowability of these claims utilizing the required Federal criteria” and that AHCA “promptly implement the necessary system edits so that services provided as emergent care [could] be differentiated from services provided after the point the patients are stable, and then bill to the proper Federal programs.” In September 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, published its “Review of Medicaid Funding for Emergency Services Provided to Nonqualified Aliens” (report). The report described existing internal controls at AHCA that needed to be improved in order to assure that “all claims for services provided to undocumented aliens are for conditions that the State agency defines as emergency services.” RN Ryder explained that AHCA’s internal controls, mainly the computer program, prevented the reviewers from adjusting a claim’s length of stay to the point where the emergency condition had been alleviated. Rather, the computer would only allow for the approval or denial of a claim. AHCA’s response to the report provided: The Agency’s contracted quality improvement organization began reviewing all requests for Medicaid reimbursement of inpatient emergency services for undocumented aliens on July 1, 2010. These reviews determine the point at which the emergency no longer exists, consistent with federal regulations and deny Medicaid reimbursement for the remainder of the inpatient stay. The Agency is also undertaking a retrospective review of all inpatient alien claims from July 2005 through June 30, 2010, to determine point of stabilization. Any payments made in error will be recouped, and the federal share will be adjusted on the Form CMS-64. The retrospective reviews will begin October 1, 2010. In August 2012, health care providers, including Lee Memorial, filed a Petition for Determination of Invalidity of Non-Rule Policy. This rule challenge, known as Bayfront I, ended with the December 12, 2012, Final Order that AHCA’s use of “the ‘point of stabilization’ standard was an interpretation or an implementation of the existing statutes and rules and not merely a restatement of them.” As such, AHCA discontinued reliance on the “stabilization standard.” In October 2014, health care providers, including Lee Memorial, filed a second Petition for Determination of Invalidity of Non-Rule Policy or In the Alternative for Determination of the Invalidity of a Rule. This rule challenge, known as Bayfront II, ended with the April 20, 2015, Final Order5/ that AHCA, having provided notice that it was going to start enforcing it statutes and rules, did not change “an interpretation or way of applying a statute or its rules. It is just starting to enforce them, as they are written, after years of neglecting to enforce them.” See Bayfront Med. Ctr., et al. v. AHCA, Case No. 14-4758, FO at 69 (Fla. DOAH Apr. 20, 2015). PROCESS One method the Agency uses to discover Medicaid overpayments is by auditing billing and payment records of Medicaid providers. Such audits are performed by staff in the Agency's MPI. MPI is responsible for reviewing providers to assure that paid claims for services rendered were in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations and handbook(s). MPI looks to ensure that the provider is enrolled, the recipient is eligible, the service billed is covered, and the service is billed appropriately. As an example: An alien is in need of medical care, emergent or otherwise. The alien applies through DCF to become eligible for medical services, and is deemed eligible. An EMC arises, and the alien immediately presents to a duly enrolled Medicaid Provider, a health care facility of some type.6/ The alien is admitted as an inpatient on day one, and emergency health care services are provided. The EMC is alleviated as of day three, yet the alien remains in the health care facility for ten more days, receiving medical services, but not of the emergent type. The alien is discharged from the facility on day The facility bills the Medicaid program for 13 days of service. It is not uncommon for the alien’s eligibility to be determined after the hospitalization has ended, and the provider is seeking to cover its costs. PEER REVIEW When a claim was presented for peer review, the peer reviewers were directed to base the review on the standards governing emergency Medicaid for Aliens under state and federal laws, rules, and regulations. The peer reviewers had three issues to determine: whether an EMC existed, the length or duration of the emergency services (when the EMC was alleviated), and whether there were sufficient medical documentation/records to perform a medical review of the rendered services. The peer reviewers were all Florida-licensed physicians, either allopathic or osteopathic, who were matched by specialty or subspecialty to the claims they were reviewing. Each physician testified as to his or her medical or osteopathic education, background and training. Petitioner offered each physician as an expert, and each was accepted as such. The physicians were trained by their peer review organization on the statutes and rules regarding emergency Medicaid for aliens. The physicians then applied the standards contained in the statutes and rules with their education, training and experience to determine whether an EMC existed, the date on which the EMC was alleviated, and whether there were sufficient medical records upon which to make those determinations. SPECIFIC CLAIMS TO DOAH CASE NO. 14-4171 Adam Berko, D.O, a Board-certified family practitioner (a/k/a general practitioner), credibly testified regarding the following claim: Claim (Patient) 3, an 18-year-old male, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on December 5, 2006, complaining of shortness of breath, chest pain, body aches and abdominal pain. He was diagnosed with acute renal failure and leukocytosis with bandermia. Patient 3 was discharged from the hospital on December 14, 2006. Dr. Berko credibly testified that Patient 3’s EMC had been alleviated as of December 9, 2006. Mark Kanarek, M.D., a Board-certified pediatric physician credibly testified regarding the following claims: Claim (Patient) 4, an 11-year-old female, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on December 6, 2006, with abdominal pain and emesis (vomiting). It was medically necessary to admit Patient 4. An x-ray was taken which showed a subacute intestinal obstruction secondary to adhesions. A follow-up x-ray on December 7, showed there was a resolution of the small bowel distention. By December 8, Patient 4 was having regular bowel movements, which signified no further obstruction. She remained in the hospital until December 10, 2016; however, when Patient 4’s bowel obstruction was alleviated on the 8th, the EMC was alleviated. Claim (Patient) 21, a four-year-old male with Down’s syndrome presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on July 18, 2006, with a fever following a diagnosis of leukemia. It was an emergent condition for which hospitalization was necessary. Patient 21 continued to have fever spikes through July 23, 2006, which placed the child at a continued risk for life-threatening sepsis. The blood cultures returned as negative and the child was fever-free. Patient 21 remained in the hospital until July 26, 2006, however when the patient’s fever broke, on the 23rd, and the blood cultures returned as negative, the EMC was alleviated. Michael Phillips, M.D., a Board-certified internist credibly testified regarding the following claims: Claim (Patient) 5, an 86-year-old female, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on April 11, 2006, with nausea, vomiting and dehydration. Given Patient 5’s age and condition, it was medically necessary to admit her. Patient 5 received IV fluids, which were stopped on April 12, 2006. As such, on April 12, Patient 5’s EMC was alleviated, and she was discharged on April 13, 2006. Claim (Patient) 8, a 31-year-old male presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on October 6, 2006, complaining of weakness and dizziness since that morning. Patient 8 was found to have new onset diabetes, after having lost approximately 47 pounds in the preceding four or five months. The admitting diagnosis was “syncope and collapse,” but without mention of a loss of consciousness. There was discussion regarding the signs of the significant weight loss. Patient 8 was discharged on October 12, following his receipt of insulin,7/ oral hypoglycemics8/ and education for his diabetic condition. Patient 8 had “a chronic medical condition that required treatment, but again, it wasn’t something that required immediate emergency care.” There was no EMC. Claim (Patient) 11, a 26-year-old male with a history of testicular cancer, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on August 29, 2006, for his fifth cycle of chemotherapy. Patient 11 was admitted to a regular nursing floor for his scheduled chemotherapy treatment. Patient 11 was discharged on September 4, 2006. Patient 11 did not have an EMC nor did he receive any emergency services; rather, he had a scheduled medical treatment. Claim (Patient) 27, a 43-year-old female presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on July 9, 2006, with complaints of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and chills. She had a two-month history of abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, and was diagnosed as having colitis. Patient 27 was admitted to Lee Memorial, had an abdominal scan and was treated with IV infusions. She did not require immediate surgery or any emergency services during the admission. Patient 27 did not receive any emergency services. She was discharged on September 4, 2006. Steve Beiser, M.D., a Board-certified internist credibly testified regarding the following claim: a. Claim (Patient) 13, a 28-year-old male was admitted to Lee Memorial on October 9, 2006, for an elective surgery. Patient 13 underwent an anterior mediastinal germ cell tumor resection and was discharged on October 14, 2006. Patient 13 did not receive any emergency services. Bruce Shephard, M.D., a Board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist, credibly testified regarding the following claim: Claim (Patient) 18, a 23–year-old female, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on March 3, 2006, with complaints of being unable to void or have a bowel movement, abdominal pain, and pelvic pain. She was admitted on March 3, and her EMC presented on March 8, when she underwent surgery. Patient 13 was discharged on March 9. The EMC was alleviated on March 8, 2006. SPECIFIC CLAIMS TO DOAH CASE NO. 15-3271 Dr. Berko credibly testified regarding the following claim: a. Claim (Patient) 7, a 52-year-old male, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on November 30, 2007, with complaints of epigastric pain, anemia and alcohol abuse. During his December 1, 2015, deposition (Petitioner’s Exhibit 21), Dr. Berko testified there was insufficient documentation to properly review the claim. At the hearing, the parties agreed that Respondent was able to provide the medical records. Dr. Berko was able to review the material and render his opinion via a January 23, 2016, Case Detail Report (CDR). Although Respondent did not object to the admission of Petitioner’s Exhibit 66, the CDR which contained Dr. Berko’s peer review is hearsay. There was no direct credible testimony regarding Patient 7, and no finding of fact is made with respect to Patient 7. Dr. Kanarek credibly testified regarding the following claims: Claim (Patient) 4, an eight-year-old female, presented to Lee Memorial with bone pain, fever and a refusal to walk on December 26, 2007. During his January 11, 2016, deposition (Petitioner’s Exhibit 19), Dr. Kanarek testified that there was insufficient documentation to properly review the claim. At the hearing, the parties agreed that Respondent was able to provide the medical records and Dr. Kanarek was able to review the material and render his opinion via a January 21, 2016, CDR. Although Respondent did not object to the admission of Petitioner’s Exhibit 65, the CDR which contained Dr. Kanarek’s peer review is hearsay. There was no direct credible testimony regarding Patient 4, and no finding of fact is made with respect to Patient 4. Claim (Patient) 12, a 17-year-old male, was admitted to Lee Memorial on January 17, 2007, for a mediport placement, bone marrow biopsy on January 18, and the initiation of chemotherapy. (Patient 12 had been diagnosed with undifferentiated sarcoma with metastasis to the lungs.) There was no EMC for Patient 12, but rather a planned hospitalization for his cancer treatment. Following his chemotherapy, Patient 12 was discharged on January 22, 2007. Claim (Patient) 24, a six-year-old Down’s syndrome male with leukemia, was admitted to Lee Memorial on October 11, 2007, with fever and pancytopenia. He was discharged on October 15, 2007, after he had been fever-free for 48 hours on October 14. Dr. Kanarek determined that Patient 24’s EMC was alleviated on October 14. Claim (Patient) 27, a two-year-old male, was presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on August 5, 2007, following a near drowning event which required cardiopulmonary resuscitation. During his January 11, 2016, deposition (Petitioner’s Exhibit 19), Dr. Kanarek testified that there was insufficient documentation to properly review the claim. At the hearing, the parties stipulated that Respondent was able to provide the medical records. Dr. Kanarek was able to review the material and render his opinion via a January 21, 2016, CDR. Although Respondent did not object to the admission of Petitioner’s Exhibit 67, the CDR which contained Dr. Kanarek’s peer review is hearsay. There was no direct credible testimony regarding Patient 27, and no finding of fact is made with respect to Patient 27. Claim (Patient) 40, a seven-year-old male, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on November 26, 2007, with a one- week history of left-sided facial swelling, following a tooth extraction. Although the child had been given oral antibiotics following the tooth extraction, that course of treatment failed, and his facial swelling and pain increased. When hospitalized, Patient 40 was started on IV antibiotics, and by November 28, 2007, his blood culture was negative, he remained afebrile, and his facial swelling had subsided. The EMC was alleviated on November 28, 2007. Patient 40 was discharged on December 10, 2007. Claim (Patient) 44, a 13-year-old male, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on August 13, 2007, with a two and one-half month history of weight loss, increased thirst and urination, and a blood glucose of 534. He was admitted to the hospital, given IV normal saline bolus, started on insulin, and received diabetic instruction. Patient 44 did not present with an EMC; he presented with new onset diabetes. Dr. Kanarek credibly testified that Patient 44 never exhibited any signs of diabetic ketoacidosis, an imminently life-threatening condition, and he never required intensive or emergent care. Patient 44 was discharged on August 17, 2007. Thomas Wells, M.D., a Board-certified surgeon and family practitioner, who engages in emergency medicine, family practice and surgery, credibly testified regarding the following claims: Claim (Patient) 6, a 26-year-old female, was admitted to Lee Memorial on May 14, 2007, for a scheduled gastric cancer surgery. This patient had a medical condition, but there was no evidence that she presented with an EMC. Patient 6 was discharged on May 21, 2007. Claim (Patient) 46, a 20-year-old male, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on June 10, 2007, following a motor vehicle crash. Patient 46 was admitted to the hospital with a traumatic brain injury, bilateral chest trauma, blunt abdominal trauma with liver injury, and multiple bone fractures complicated by cocaine use. His hospital stay was complicated by the surgically repaired wounds opening, and he required additional surgeries. By July 2, 2007, Patient 46’s cardiology workup was completed, his arrhythmia was resolved, his abdominal wound was improving, and he was tolerating food by mouth. Dr. Wells determined that his EMC was alleviated by July 2. Patient 46 was discharged from the hospital on July 7, 2007. Claim (Patient) 50, a 33-year-old male, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on July 13, 2007, with upper quadrant abdominal pain radiating to his back. Patient 50 was admitted and underwent testing protocol. By July 20, 2007, Patient 50’s white blood count had improved, his temperature was improved and his condition was no longer emergent. Dr. Wells determined that the EMC was alleviated on July 20, 2007. Patient 50 was discharged from the hospital on July 21, 2007. Dr. Beiser credibly testified regarding the following claims: Claim (Patient) 9, a 54-year-old male, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room and was admitted on September 4, 2007. Prior to the admission, Patient 9 had been non-compliant with his health care provider’s instructions, and he was told to “go to the ER.” Although he came in through the emergency department, there was no EMC to address, or to be alleviated. Rather, Patient 9 was a non-compliant patient who needed to comply with his physician’s directions. Patient 54 was discharged on September 8, 2007. Claim (Patient) 11, a 33-year-old female, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on April 6, 2007, with a recurrent deep vein thrombosis of her left lower extremity. Her condition was an EMC, and she was admitted. Her physician promptly administered anticoagulation medication and her condition improved, so much so that she was walking well and without chest pain or shortness of breath the following day, April 7. She was discharged on April 9, 2007. Dr. Beiser determined her EMC was alleviated on April 8, 2007. Claim (Patient) 15, a 35–year-old male, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on April 7, 2007, following a motor vehicle accident involving alcohol intoxication. Patient 15 had a left ankle contusion and a closed head injury, which on imaging identified a large brain mass. The mass was determined to be a cyst and no emergent intervention was indicated. The following day, April 8, Patient 15 was alert and oriented with no apparent alcohol withdrawal symptoms. Dr. Beiser determined that his EMC was alleviated on April 8, 2007. Claims 17 and 18 involve the same patient over two different hospitalizations. Patient 17/18, a 51–year-old female, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on September 5, 2007, with complaint of abdominal pain after gastric bypass surgery. She was admitted to the hospital and noted to have ascites, jaundice and diabetes. Patient 17/18 was found to have liver failure and bacterial peritonitis. Dr. Beiser determined that the EMC was alleviated by September 11, when Patient 17/18’s abdominal pain had resolved and there was significant improvement in her overall condition. On October 13, Patient 17/18 again presented to Lee Memorial with complaints of abdominal pain for four days’ duration. She was known to have severe liver disease. Her abdominal pain was suspected to be bacterial peritonitis and this EMC was treated. By October 15, Patient 17/18 was found to be afebrile with no abdominal tenderness. Dr. Beiser determined that the EMC was alleviated on October 15, and the patient was discharged on October 21, 2007. Claim (Patient) 31, a 25-year-old male with a history of meningitis, neurosyphilis and underlying human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on June 14, 2007, with an acute febrile illness and neck mass. He was admitted to the hospital and started on IV antibiotics, and a neck biopsy was performed. Patient 31 had a complicated hospital stay as he had persistent fevers, headaches, episodes of hypotension, and sepsis. Through treatment, his condition improved and he was discharged on July 3, 2007. Dr. Beiser determined that the EMC was alleviated on June 27, 2007. Claims 33 and 34 involve the same patient over two different hospitalizations. Patient 33/34 is a 67-year-old female who presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on May 21, 2007, with an active gastrointestinal bleed and blood loss anemia. She underwent blood transfusions and the anemia was alleviated by May 22. Patient 33/34 was discharged on May 23, 2007. Dr. Beiser determined that the EMC was alleviated on May 22, 2007. Patient 33/34 presented to Lee Memorial on July 5, 2007, with an active gastrointestinal bleed and blood loss anemia. Patient 33/34 underwent blood transfusions and the anemia was alleviated on July 6. Patient 33/34 refused any further medical procedures, and she was discharged on July 8, 2007. Dr. Beiser determined that the EMC was alleviated on July 6, 2007. Claim (Patient) 37, a 27–year-old female, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on October 12, 2007, with complaints of severe abdominal pain. On October 14, her condition was “improved,” and she denied any abdominal pain, nausea or vomiting. Dr. Beiser determined her EMC was alleviated on October 14. Patient 37 was discharged on October 15, 2007. Claim (Patient) 38, a 32-year-old male, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on September 28, 2007, with complaints of excessive thirst and urination, with some slight weight loss and weakness. He was admitted to the hospital for uncontrolled diabetes. Although Dr. Beiser determined that uncontrolled diabetes is not an EMC, Patient 38’s records demonstrated that he had diabetic ketoacidosis, which is an EMC. With insulin, Patient 38’s EMC was alleviated on September 29, 2007. He was discharged on October 1, 2007. Claim (Patient) 49, a 33-year-old male, presented to Lee Memorial’s emergency room on April 30, 2007, with complaints of right mid-lower quadrant abdominal pain with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea for two days prior to presentation. Patient 49 was admitted to rule out appendicitis. Patient 49 was taken to surgery on May 2, 2007, where an appendectomy was successfully performed. He had an uneventful recovery, and Dr. Beiser determined that the EMC was alleviated on May 2, 2007. Patient 49 was discharged on May 4, 2007. Dr. Shephard credibly testified regarding the following claim: a. Claim (Patient) 36, an 18-year–old female, presented to, and was admitted to Lee Memorial on July 14, 2007, at 31 weeks gestation with a heart condition and mild pre-eclampsia. Her medical condition became emergent on July 26, when she experienced congestive heart failure and decreased oxygen levels. She was transferred to the intensive care unit, and she delivered by emergency C-section on July 28, 2007. Patient 36 was extubated on July 29, and her cardiopulmonary status continued to improve. She was discharged on August 3, 2007. Dr. Shephard determined that Patient 36’s EMC started on July 26 and was alleviated on August 2, 2007. RECOUPMENT OF MEDICAID OVERPAYMENTS Based upon the foregoing findings, and the persuasive weight of the evidence presented by the parties, it is determined: As to Patient 3, EMC was not required for this patient subsequent to December 9, 2006; As to Patient 4, EMC was not required for this patient subsequent to December 8, 2006; As to Patient 21, EMC was not required for this patient subsequent to July 25, 2006; As to Patient 5, EMC was not required for this patient subsequent to April 12, 2006; As to Patient 8, none of this patient’s care was required as emergency medical care; As to Patient 11, none of this patient’s care was required as emergency medical care; As to Patient 27, none of this patient’s care was required as emergency medical care; As to Patient 13, none of this patient’s care was required as emergency medical care; As to Patient 18, although admitted on March 3, 2006, the EMC presented on March 8, and Patient 13 was discharged on March 9, 2006; (The following patients were seen in 2007.) As to Patient 7, no finding of fact was made with respect to the care provided; As to Patient 4, no finding of fact was made with respect to the care provided; As to Patient 12, none of this patient’s care was required as emergency medical care; As to Patient 24, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to October 14, 2007; As to Patient 27, no finding of fact was made with respect to the care provided; As to Patient 40, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to November 28, 2007; As to Patient 44, none of this patient’s care was required as emergency medical care; As to Patient 6, none of this patient’s care was required as emergency medical care; As to Patient 46, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to July 2, 2007; As to Patient 50, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to July 20, 2007; As to Patient 11, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to April 8, 2007; As to Patient 15, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to April 9, 2007; As to Patient 17, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to September 11, 2007; As to Patient 18, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to October 15, 2007; As to Patient 33, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to May 22, 2007; As to Patient 34, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to July 6, 2007; As to Patient 37, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to October 14, 2007; AA. As to Patient 38, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to September 29, 2007; BB. As to Patient 49, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to May 2, 2007; CC. As to Patient 36, emergency medical care was not required for this patient subsequent to August 2, 2007. With respect to both DOAH case numbers, Respondent offered no testimony or evidence to dispute or rebut the testimony on any of the claims presented above. Each expert credibly testified as to when each EMC presented and the date on which each EMC was alleviated. The experts provided the requisite support to both the AFAR and FAR.
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 sustaining the Medicaid overpayment in DOAH Case No. 14-4171 as $57,337.71, plus sanctions of $2,500, and costs of $2,062.04. With respect to DOAH Case No. 15-3271, the amount due should be recalculated based on only those claims that were found to be overpayments,9/ and costs of $3,528.41. Based on the oral stipulation announced at the hearing (found on Transcript, page 106), AHCA “remove[d] the claim for sanctions as to the 2007 case[s].” DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 27th day of April, 2016
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the provider, Medilab, was overpaid for medicaid claims as alleged in the letter dated November 3, 1993.
Findings Of Fact The Agency is the state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid program. At all times material to this case, Medilab was a medicaid provider. Medilab enrolled as a physician group provider on or about October 2, 1991. Medilab was not enrolled with the Florida Medicaid program as a diagnostic lab. At all times material to this case, Medilab was owned and operated by Roberto Rodriguez and Jorge Nunez. Mr. Rodriguez handled the administrative duties for Medilab while Mr. Nunez operated the diagnostic portion of the business. Medilab operated several machines for diagnostic evaluations as ordered by a physician. Such machines produced documentation which was then evaluated by another physician. Dr. Carmouze did not perform the service nor interpret the diagnostic results. When Medilab applied for a provider number to enroll in the Medicaid program it represented that services were to be provided by Dr. Arnoldo Carmouze. It was further represented that Dr. Carmouze would treat or supervise treatment of patients on behalf of the Medilab "group." On or about January 11, 1992, Medilab received its group provider number along with a copy of the Medicaid Physician Provider Handbook. Medilab was notified that it could begin billing for services beginning October 2, 1991. Subsequently, the Agency performed an audit of Medilab for the period October 2, 1991 through August 31, 1992. Li-Hsiang Wu, a computer systems project analyst employed by the Agency, generated a random sample of Medicaid recipients by using a computer program to calculate the total number of Medicaid recipients for which claims were submitted during the audit period. Then Medilab's provider number and the dates of the audit were used to generate the total number of Medicaid recipients for whom claims were submitted by Medilab for the audit period. Once the total number of recipients was identified, Ms. Wu generated a list of forty-three recipient numbers which were selected by the computer from the total number claimed by Medilab for the period searched. Mr. Allen then requested and obtained from Medilab the medical records for the same forty-three randomly selected Medicaid recipients. The medical records were first reviewed by Phyllis Stiver, the Agency's registered nurse consultant. Once Ms. Stiver completed her initial review, Mr. Allen requested additional records from Medilab. Specifically, documentation for the office visit and records that established the necessity for the tests performed by Medilab were requested for each of the forty-three recipients. Medilab subsequently submitted additional records to the Agency which were also reviewed by Ms. Stiver. Ms. Stiver determined that based upon her review of the forty-three records, Medilab had violated Medicaid rules and policy as follows: Medilab failed to have all of the medical records signed by a physician and dated; and Medilab failed to document in the medical records to show that certain diagnostic tests were performed. After Ms. Stiver completed her review of the records, Dr. Sullenberger reviewed each of Medilab's medical records for the forty-three patients. Dr. Sullenberger determined, and it is found, that the majority of the tests performed by Medilab were not medically necessary based upon the symptoms documented for each patient, the prior patient histories established by the records, and the absence of other, less expensive testing that would normally be utilized to determine a medical condition. Virtually all of the patient records reviewed recited the same medical complaints: chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitation, numbness or tingling in extremities, and dizziness. Only five of the forty-three patients were over 49 years of age. The ages of the majority of the forty-three were under 50. That age group is rarely afflicted by the types of medical conditions which the Medilab equipment was used to detect. The symptoms and medical histories recited in the medical records did not justify the tests performed by Medilab for the following patients (recipients identified in this record as numbers 1 through 43): 1, 2, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, and 41. With the exception of the electrocardiogram, the symptoms and medical histories recited in the medical records did not justify the tests performed by Medilab for the following patients (recipients identified in this record as numbers 1 through 43): 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 36, 39, 40, 42, and 43. With regard to recipient 8, except for the electrocardiogram and the abdominal ultrasound, the tests performed by Medilab were medically unnecessary. With regard to recipient 10, except for the electrocardiogram and the Doppler echocardiogram, the tests performed by Medilab were medically unnecessary. With regard to recipient 14, except for the electrocardiogram and the echocardiogram, the tests performed by Medilab were medically unnecessary. With regard to recipient 28, except for the mammogram, the tests performed by Medilab were medically unnecessary. None of the services or testing performed by Medilab were supervised by a physician. Two physicians, Dr. Pozo and Dr. Pereira, radiologists, read the diagnostic results but were not on site to perform or supervise the tests on a daily basis. Dr. Pozo did not supervise the services that were provided at Medilab. Dr. Pereira, who is deceased and whose testimony was not available, did not supervise the services that were provided at Medilab. According to Mr. Nunez, Dr. Pereira had someone from his office courier the tests results and his interpretations to and from the Medilab facility. Dr. Pereira may have visited the facility on occasion but was not there during its full hours of operation. Dr. Carmouze, the treating physician and representative for Medilab's physician group, did not supervise the services at Medilab. Dr. Carmouze treated over 95 percent of the total patients referred to Medilab yet Dr. Carmouze never billed the Medicaid program for the patients' office visits. For the audit period, of the 493 different patients Medilab billed Medicaid for, Dr. Carmouze is the only treating physician identified by the records. The Medicaid Physician's Handbook, supplied to Medilab at the time of its enrollment, specified that to be reimbursable the services performed by a physician group provider had to be medically necessary and supervised by a physician. The Medicaid Provider Agreement required Medilab to keep complete and accurate medical and fiscal records that fully justify and disclose the extent of the services rendered for five years. All tests performed by Medilab were documented with a physician's order for same. Medilab submitted for review all medical and fiscal records it maintained in its attempt to fully justify and disclose the extent of the services it rendered.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration, Medicaid Program Integrity Office, issue a final order charging Medilab for the full amounts paid for the audit period as the services rendered were not supervised by a physician and were, therefore, not "physician services." Additionally, the Agency should impose an administrative fine in an amount not to exceed $5,000.00. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 1st day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-0096 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 6, and 12 are accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected as not supported by the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 7 is accepted as to the general statement but is rejected as to the amount claimed. Paragraph 8 is rejected as a mischaracterization of testimony; it is accepted Dr. Sullenberger, on further reflection and in an effort to be consistent, gave Medilab the benefit of doubt and modified disallowed items. Paragraph 9 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 10 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 11 is rejected as contrary to weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 13 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant. That Dr. Carmouze never charged for the alleged office visits that generated the referral for tests was the relevant fact. Paragraph 15 is accurate but is irrelevant in light of the stipulation. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 36, 39, 41, 43, 46, 48, 49, 50, 52, and 53 are accepted. Paragraphs 37, 38, 40, 42, and 47 are rejected as argument. Paragraph 44 is rejected as hearsay not supported by direct evidence. Paragraph 45 is rejected as not supported by the weight of credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 51, the first sentence is accepted; the remainder rejected as not supported by the weight of credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Heidi E. Garwood Agency for Health Care Administration 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building B, Room 271 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Monte K. Rassner Rassner, Rassner, Kramer & Gold, P.A. 7000 Southwest 62nd Avenue, Suite PH-B South Miami, Florida 33143 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Tom Wallace, Assistant Director Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
