Findings Of Fact I. Proposed findings of Medivision and DHRS Included in HO # 1. Accepted insofar as included in HO # 13. Included in HO # 2. Included in HO #6. Included in HO #5. Accepted insofar as included in HO #11. Included in HO 8 and 9. Included in HO 3 and 10 and 12, 13, and 14. Rejected insofar as inconsistent with HO #16. Accepted insofar as included in HO #2. Accepted. Not deemed relevant to results reached. Accepted insofar as included in HO #18. Included in HO #2. Accepted. Not deemed relevant to results reached.- Included in HO #2. Rejected as inconsistent with HO #14 and 15. Rejected as inconsistent with HO #15,16, and 17. Rejected as inconsistent with HO #15,16, and 17. Accepted. Not relevant to results reached. Accepted only insofar as included in HO #19. Included in HO #13, 14. Included in HO #18. Accepted. Not relevant to results reached. Rejected insofar as inconsistent with HO #l3. Included in HO #21. Included in HO #15. Included in HO #15, 16, 19, and 20. PROPOSED FINDINGS WFRMC Included in preliminary portion of RO. Accepted insofar as included in HO 42. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Included in preliminary portion of RO. Included in HO #6. Included in HO #6. Accepted insofar as not in conflict with HO #8. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as stating a negative. Accepted insofar as in agreement with HO #8. Accepted. Included in HO #20. Included in HO #21. Included in HO $17. Accepted. Included in HO #8. Accepted. Accepted insofar as included in HO #13. Included in Ho #21. Included in HO #16. Included in HO #16. Included in HO #16. APPENDIX JOINT PROPOSED FINDINGS OF BAPTIST HOSPITAL AND SACRED HEART HOSPITAL Accepted. Relevant portions are included in HO #1. Included in HO #4. Included in HO #3. Included in HO #3. Included in HO #3. Included in HO #6. Included in HO #8. Included in HO #7. Included in HO #8. Included in HO #10. Included in HO #10. Accepted insofar as included in HO #15. Accepted insofar as included in HO #12 and 16. Accepted insofar as included in HO #16. Rejected as conclusion of law Included in HO #18. Included in HO #18. Included in HO # 2. Rejected as not relevant. Included in HO #2. Included in HO #18. Accepted insofar as included in HO #8,9, and 15. Accepted insofar as included in HO #17. Included in HO #18. Accepted insofar as included in HO #16. Accepted. Not included because irrelevant and immaterial. Figures rejected as speculative. Accepted insofar as included in HO #17. Accepted insofar as included in HO #17. Rejected as inconsistent with HO #18. Rejected as conclusion of law. Rejected. Non-rule policy not applicable to specialty ambulatory surgery centers. ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES MEDIVISION OF ESCAMBIA COUNTY, INC., Petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, CASE NO. 85-2443 Respondent, and WEST FLORIDA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, SACRED HEART HOSPITAL OF PENSACOLA and BAPTIST HOSPITAL, INC. /
The Issue The issue is whether FFVA Mutual Insurance Company (FFVA) should be required to pay an additional $4,169.00 (for a total of $13,155.60) to a health care provider for a pre-authorized scheduled outpatient surgery.
Findings Of Fact FFVA, an insurance company, is a "carrier" as defined in section 440.13(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2012).4/ Summerlin is a health care provider as defined in section 440.13(1)(h) and is located in Fort Myers, Florida. On March 1, 2012, the Patient, an insured of FFVA, underwent a pre-authorized arthroscopic knee surgery, which was performed at Summerlin. The surgery was performed by Fletcher A. Reynolds, III, M.D. Dr. Reynolds dictated an Operative Report wherein he described the "Procedures Performed" as: Right knee arthroscopy, subtotal medial meniscectomy of bucket-handle medical meniscus tear, major synovectomy, medial compartment chondroplasty, and abrasion chondroplasty of the inferior medial aspect of the trochlea down to bleeding bone.[5/] The Operative Report also contained a section, "Procedure in Detail," which explained the extent of the surgery performed on the Patient's knee. The Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for use to bill for the Patient's procedures include: 29879 abrasion arthroplasty (includes chondroplasty where necessary) or multiple drilling or microfracture; 29881 with meniscetomy (medial OR lateral, including any meniscal shaving); and 29875 synovectomy, limited (eg, plica or shelf resection) (separate procedure). A modifier is a number added to a particular CPT code that explains the procedure and what, if anything, is unusual about it. The two modifiers at issue are "51" and "59." Modifier 51 is defined as: Multiple Procedures: When multiple procedures . . . are performed at the same session by the same provider, the primary procedure or service may be reported as listed. The additional procedure(s) or service(s) may be identified by appending modifier 51 to the additional procedure or service code(s). Note: This modifier should not be appended to designated "add- on" codes (see Appendix D). CPT 2010,® American Medical Association, Appendix A- Modifiers, page 529. Modifier 59 is defined as: Distinct Procedural Service: Under certain circumstances, it may be necessary to indicate that a procedure or service was distinct or independent from other non-E/M [evaluation and management] services performed on the same day. Modifier 59 is used to identify procedures/services, other than E/M services, that are not normally reported together, but are appropriate under the circumstances. Documentation must support a different session, different procedure or surgery, different site or organ system, separate incision/excision, separate lesion, or separate injury (or area of injury in extensive injuries) not ordinarily encountered or performed on the same day by the same individual. However, when another already established modifier is appropriate it should be used rather than modifier 59. Only if no more descriptive modifier is available, and the use of modifier 59 best explains the circumstances, should modifier 59 be used. Note: Modifier 59 should not be appended to an E/M service. To report a separate and distinct E/M service with a non-E/M service performed on the same date, see modifier 25. CPT 2010,® American Medical Association, Appendix A- Modifiers, page 530. Summerlin submitted a bill to FFVA identifying the following CPT codes and charges for each procedure done on the Patient's knee: 29879RT ($8,338.00); 29881RT ($8,338.00); and 2987551RT ($8,338.00). Summerlin's total bill was $25,014.00. FFVA paid Summerlin $8,986.60, $5,836.60 for the primary procedure (CPT code 29879RT) and $3,150.00 for the second procedure (CPT code 29881RT), but disallowed any payment for CPT code 2987551RT. FFVA issued an Explanation of Bill Review (EOBR) explaining that the total recommended allowance for reimbursement was $8,986.60. FFVA's "EOBR CODE DESCRIPTION" listed number "69" to justify its decision. As explained on the EOBR: 69 PAYMENT DISALLOWED: BILLING ERROR: CORRECT CODING INITIATIVE GUIDELINES INDICATE THIS CODE IS A COMPREHENSIVE COMPONENT OF CODE XXXXX BILLED FOR SERVICE(S) PROVIDED ON THE SAME DAY (29875 IS A COMPREHENSIVE COMPONENT OF 29879).[6/] Summerlin timely filed a "Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute," and FFVA timely filed a "Carrier Response to Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute," each pursuant to section 440.13(7). The Department issued its "Workers' Compensation Medical Services Reimbursement Dispute Determination" wherein it found that FFVA improperly adjusted the reimbursement, but only as to the charges billed for CPT code 2987551RT. The uncontroverted facts are that the Patient underwent a pre-authorized arthroscopic surgical procedure to the knee. Summerlin's invoice for billing provided to FFVA accurately reflected the multiple procedures performed by the surgeon, as did the Operative Report. Julie Dunn, FFVA's "medical compliance person," has worked for several insurance companies over her 25-year career. Her description of the process of reviewing medical bills and coding, a "complicated process because there's [sic] multiple resources that are adopted . . . ," is credible. However, in this instance, Ms. Dunn, who is not a professional coder (but is a member of a professional coder organization), did not review the EOBR until after Summerlin filed a reimbursement dispute. Although helpful, her testimony is not without doubt. Ms. Dunn never reviewed the Operative Report for the Patient. Further, FFVA only brought up the "59" modifier concern after the EOBR was issued, and the request for additional payment was made. Arlene Cotton, the Department's registered nurse consultant, is tasked with reviewing cases where a provider is disputing the reimbursement received. Ms. Cotton holds a bachelor's degree and a master's degree in nursing. Additionally, she is a certified professional coder who has reviewed hundreds of cases involving ambulatory surgical centers. Ms. Cotton reviewed Summerlin's petition for reimbursement by reviewing the CPT codes and the Operative Report for the Patient. Summerlin properly coded the Patient's three procedures. Ms. Cotton credibly explained the three procedures via the codes as follows: CPT code 29879, the primary procedure was an arthroplasty which was done in both the medial and the patellofemoral compartments of the knee; CPT code 29881 was a meniscectomy which was done in the medial compartment; and CPT code 29875 was a synovectomy which was done in the medial aspect, the intercondylar, the anterior lateral, and the patellofemoral. Further, Ms. Cotton described two additional synovectomies (for a total of four synovectomies) performed that were detailed in the Patient's Operative Report. However, Summerlin only billed for one synovectomy. FFVA's claim that Summerlin should have used modifier "59" instead of modifier "51" to "identify that procedure code 29875 was a . . . unique identifiable or a separately identifiable service" is misplaced. The Florida Workers' Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Ambulatory Surgical Centers, 2011 Edition (CRM ABS), requires that a surgical center use modifier 51. There was no credible evidence that Summerlin incorrectly billed for the three procedures. FFVA failed to appreciate the significance of modifier "51" and failed to appropriately reimburse Summerlin.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, Office of Medical Services, enter a final order affirming the Reimbursement Dispute Determination issued April 24, 2012, wherein the Department directed FFVA Mutual Insurance Company to pay a total of $13,155.60 for the reimbursement claim filed by Summerlin. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 2012, 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 16th day of November, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, the parties' prehearing stipulation, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been for approximately the past 15 years, a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida. He specializes in internal medicine and cardiology and is board certified in these specialities. He currently is the Chief of Cardiology and head of the Coronary Care Unit at North Ridge Hospital and has staff privileges at approximately five other hospitals in the Broward County area. At all times material to the instant case, Health Imaging, Inc., (Health) was in the business of providing ultrasound imaging services in the State of Florida at the request of physicians, hospitals and members of the community at large. The tests performed by Health were non-invasive studies that involved no health risks. They included echocardiograms, carotid ultrasounds and other studies of the heart and vascular system done with ultrasound equipment. Unlicensed technicians operated the equipment and administered the tests. Florida-licensed physicians interpreted the test results. In August of 1987, Warren Green and his wife, the owners of Health, contacted Respondent and asked him if he would be interested in contracting with Health to provide such interpretive and diagnostic services. After looking into the matter and satisfying himself that Health's equipment was of good quality and that its technicians were well qualified, Respondent entered into a written agreement (Agreement) with Health, the body of which provided as follows: This agreement made and entered into this 18 day of August 1987 by and between Health Imaging, having its principal business address at 6278 North Federal Highway, Suite 372, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, hereinafter referred to as "HEALTH" and Jorge Flores, M.D., having his principal business address at 5700 N. Federal Highway, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, hereinafter referred to as "DOCTOR" is made with reference to the following: WHEREAS, HEALTH is engaged in business throughout the Florida area providing ultrasound and vascular services to hospitals, physician offices and the community. DOCTOR is engaged in the business of providing medical services to his patients and patients of other doctors and hospitals in the Ft. Lauderdale, Florida area. Health desires to contract from DOCTOR for certain diagnostic interpretation services for its own patients and patients of other doctors and hospitals in the Florida area. NOW THEREFORE, HEALTH AND DOCTOR AGREE AS FOLLOWS: Equipment. HEALTH agrees to provide all necessary equipment and supplies to perform the services according to the schedule set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto. Personnel. Health shall provide qualified technologists to operate the equipment for the services set forth on Schedule A, attached hereto. Solicitation of Employees. DOCTOR shall not during the term of this agreement nor a period of One (1) year after its termination, solicit for employment or employ, whether as employee or independent contractor, any person who is or has been employed by HEALTH during the term of this agreement without the prior written consent of HEALTH. Physician Interpretation Personnel. DOCTOR agrees to provide necessary qualified physicians for interpretations. Payment. For and in consideration of the services and promises contained herein by DOCTOR, HEALTH agrees to pay DOCTOR in accordance with the fee schedule set forth on Schedule A, attached hereto. All fees are to be paid in advance or at time of interpretation. Default. In the event of the default of any payment this contract may be terminated by DOCTOR. Term, Termination. The term of this agreement is for one (1) year. After Thirty (30) days either party may terminate this agreement, without cause, by giving Thirty (30) days written notice provided that in no event may HEALTH terminate this agreement unless all monies owing to DOCTOR under the terms hereof are paid in full. Compliance with Law. Both parties agree to comply with all municipal, state and federal laws and regulations. Governing Law. This agreement shall be construed under the laws of the State of Florida. Independent Contractor. DOCTOR is performing the service and duties required hereunder as an independent contractor and not as an employee, agent, partner, or joint venturer with HEALTH. Entire Agreement. This instrument shall be deemed to contain the entire agreement between HEALTH and DOCTOR and supercedes [sic] any prior or existing agreements, understandings, arrangements, terms, conditions, negotiations, or representations, oral or written, made by either party concerning or affecting the subject matter hereof. No modification of this agreement may be made except in writing, signed by HEALTH and DOCTOR. Schedule A, which was referenced in and appended to the Agreement, read as follows: INTERPRETATION FEE SCHEDULE Community, Corporate, Club and Association Screening Program Fee Schedule. EXAM: Echocardiography only FEE: One thousand dollars (1,000.00) per month for 400 studies in any thirty (30) day period. Five dollars ($5.00) per study for all studies exceeding four Hundred (400) studies in any given thirty (30) day period. Community, Corporate, Club and Association Screening Program Fee Schedule. EXAMS: (Any combination of the following) Carotid Ultrasound with Doppler and Periorbital Doppler Echocardiography Upper and Lower Extremity Doppler Study FEE: Three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) per month for any combination of the above studies, not to exceed 1,500 studies in any thirty (30) day period. Any combination of the above studies will be at a rate of Five Dollars ($5.00) per study in any given thirty (30) day period. Hospital and Physician offices fee Schedule: (Any studies performed in a hospital or Physician office, ordered by a physician) EXAMS Carotid ultrasound with doppler $65.00 Echocardiography $65.00 Abdominal ultrasound $65.00 Holter monitoring $65.00 Peripheral arterial examination $35.00 Peripheral venous examination $35.00 The Agreement and Schedule A were drafted by the Greens without the assistance of an attorney. Respondent furnished Health with interpretive and diagnostic services under the Agreement for approximately 18 months. He provided Health with no other services. Respondent was compensated $1,000 per month the first four months and $3,000 per month the remaining 14 months for his services. Most of the individuals whose test results Respondent interpreted during his 18-month association with Health were self-referred. The remainder of the test takers were referred by physicians. None had any prior professional relationship with Respondent. 1/ Respondent prepared a signed, written report of his findings for each test taker. 2/ He sent the report, along with the materials that he had reviewed in making his findings, to Health, which in turn provided the report to the test taker or to the referring physician, if there was one. 3/ Respondent did not consider the test takers to be his patients. He therefore did not keep copies of the reports he had prepared and sent to Health or the test materials upon which these reports had been based. 4/ The Greens had assured Respondent at the outset, however, that they would maintain these records and make them available to Respondent upon his request should he need them for some reason. The Greens were true to their word. Whenever Respondent asked to see a copy of a report or test materials, 5/ the Greens complied with his request. The Greens still have in their possession copies of the reports Respondent had prepared and transmitted, as well as the related test materials. While Respondent was aware that Health advertised to generate business, he was not asked to assist in any way, either as a consultant or otherwise, in the preparation or placement of any of Health's advertisements. Indeed, the first time he saw one of these advertisements was approximately five or six months after he began his association with Health. The advertisement was in a local newspaper that he happened to be reading. Some months later he saw another advertisement in the same newspaper. He found the contents of this particular advertisement to be "totally unacceptable." He therefore telephoned the Greens and complained about the advertisement. The Greens responded to Respondent's complaint by discontinuing the advertisement. A short time thereafter, upon the suggestion of a Department investigator who warned Respondent "to stay away from these people," Respondent severed his relationship with Health. He did so, not because he believed that he had done anything wrong, but because the Department, through its investigator, had expressed its concerns regarding the matter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of January, 1993. STUART M. LERNER 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 15th day of January, 1993.
Findings Of Fact In its 1969 legislative session, the Florida Legislature enacted Section 409.266, Florida Statutes, entitled "Medical Assistance for the Needy," providing the original state legislative basis and authority for Florida's entry into the Medicaid program. Section 409.266(2), Florida Statutes, as enacted, authorized the Florida Department of Social Services or any other department that the Governor might designate to: Enter into such agreement with other state agencies or any agency of the federal government and accept such duties with respect to social welfare or public aid as may be necessary to implement the provisions of subsection (1) and to qualify for federal aid including compliance with provisions of Public Law 86-778 and the "Social Security Amendments of 1965" [estab- lishing Title XIX of the Social Security Act] Section 409.266(3), Florida Statutes, as enacted, stated that: The Department is authorized and directed to prepare and operate a program and budget in order to implement and comply with the provisions of public law 86-778 and the "Social Security Amendments of 1965." No provisions of Florida law other than Section 409.266, Florida Statutes, as enacted, authorized any agency to perform any function specifically to implement the Medicaid program. The State of Florida formally commenced participation in the Medicaid program effective January 1, 1970. At all times pertinent to this controversy, respondent, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services or its predecessor agencies (referred to as "HRS"), has been and continues to be the "State Agency" identified in 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(a)(5), and charged under Section 409.266, Florida Statutes, as amended, with the formulation of a State Plan for Medical Assistance ("State Plan"), 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a, and with the ongoing responsibility for the administration of the Medicaid program in the State of Florida. Since Florida's entry into the Medicaid program in 1970, HRS has been authorized essentially to "[e]nter into such agreements with appropriate agents, other State agencies, or any agency of the Federal Government and accept such duties in respect to social welfare or public aid as may be necessary or needed to implement the provisions of Title XIX of the Social Security Act pertaining to medical assistance." Section 409.266(2)(a), Fla. Stat., as amended. HRS has never been authorized to enter into any agreements, accept any duties, or perform any functions with respect to the Medicaid program that are in contravention of or not authorized by Title XIX of the Social Security Act and implementing federal regulations and requirements. As a prerequisite for Florida's entry into the Medicaid program, HRS prepared and filed with the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare ("HEW") a State Plan, pursuant to Title XIX of the Social Security Act, and pursuant to its delegated legislative authority set forth in Section 409.266(2)(a), Florida Statutes. (In May, 1980, HEW was redesignated the United States Department of Health and Human Services, but for purposes of this action both shall be referred to as HEW.) C.W. Hollingsworth was the HRS official who had the responsibility for supervising the preparation, the filing, and for obtaining the approval of HEW of Florida's initial State Plan. Florida's initial State Plan was approved by HEW effective January 1, 1970. At the time that Florida received approval of its initial State Plan, Title XIX of the Social Security Act required state plans to provide for the payment of the reasonable cost of inpatient hospital services. At the time that Florida received approval of its initial State Plan, HEW regulations governing reimbursement for inpatient hospital services under Medicaid required the State Plan to provide for reimbursement of Medicaid inpatient hospital services furnished by those hospitals also participating in the Medicare program, applying the same standards, cost reimbursement principles, and methods of cost apportionment used in computing reimbursement to such hospitals under Medicare. 45 C.F.R. Section 250.30(a), and (b), 34 Fed. Reg. 1244 (January 25, 1969). At the time that Florida entered the Medicaid program, Medicare cost reimbursement principles in effect governing reimbursement for the cost of inpatient hospital services required payment of a participating hospital's actual and reasonable costs of providing such services to Medicare beneficiaries, and, moreover, that such payment be made on the basis of the hospital's current costs rather than upon the costs of a prior period or upon a fixed negotiated rate. 42 U.S.C. Section 1395x(v)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R. Sections 405.451(c)(2), 405.402(a) [later renumbered 42 C.F.R. Section 405.451(c)(2) and Section 405.402(a)]. Such Medicare principles and standards also provided for interim payments to be made to the hospital during its fiscal year. At the conclusions of the subject fiscal year, the hospital was required to file a cost report wherein the hospital included all of its costs of providing covered inpatient services to Medicare beneficiaries. A settlement or "retroactive adjustment" process then was required to reconcile the amount of interim payments received by the hospital during the fiscal period with its allowable costs incurred during that period. If the hospital had been overpaid during the year, it was required to refund the amount of that overpayment to the Medicare program. Conversely, if the hospital had been underpaid during the year, the Medicare program was required to make an additional payment to the hospital, retroactively, in the amount of the underpayment. 20 C.F.R. Sections 405.402(b)(2), 405.451(b)(2). Essentially the same Medicare principles and standards governing reimbursement of inpatient hospital services described in the two preceding paragraphs have been in effect at all times pertinent to this controversy. 42 C.F.R. Section 405.401, et seq. Florida's approved State Plan as of January 1, 1970, governing reimbursement of inpatient hospital services under the Medicaid program, committed HRS to reimburse hospitals that also participated in the Medicare program for their reasonable costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. The only versions of Florida's State Plan provisions that have been approved by HEW and that have governed HRS's reimbursement of inpatient hospital services prior to July 1, 1981, each commit HRS to reimburse hospitals that also participated in the Medicare program for their reasonable costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. Attached as an appendix to the recommended order is the form agreement drafted with the supervision of C.W. Hollingsworth, which has been in use from January 1, 1970, until July 1, 1981. From the inception of the Florida Medicaid program, and as a prerequisite for participation therein, a hospital has been required to execute a copy of the form agreement. A hospital may not participate in the Medicaid program without having executed such an agreement, nor may it propose any amendments thereto. The intent and effect of the form agreement is to require HRS to reimburse hospitals that also participated in the Medicare program for their reasonable costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. The form agreement requires HRS to compute a percentage allowance in lieu of the retroactive adjustments ("percentage allowances") in determining the rates that hospitals will be paid for providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients. The form agreement requires HRS to compute a new percentage allowance each year based on hospital cost trends. The meanings of the terms "allowance in lieu of retroactive adjustments" in all pertinent state plans and "percentage allowance for the year in lieu of retroactive payment adjustment" contained in the form agreement are identical. In drafting the form agreement HRS intended that the "percentage allowance for the year in lieu of retroactive payment adjustment" be set at a level sufficient to ensure that hospitals participating in the Medicaid program would be reimbursed their "reasonable costs" of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. At all times pertinent to this controversy, participating hospitals, like petitioner, have been reimbursed by HRS for inpatient hospital services provided to Medicaid patients in the following manner: Within ninety (90) days following the close of its fiscal year, the partici- pating hospital files a Form 2551 or 2552 Annual Statement of Reimbursable Costs, as applicable, with both Blue Cross of Florida, Inc., the major fiscal intermediary respon- sible for the administration of Part A of the federal Medicare program in the State of Florida, and with HRS. This document, also referred to as a "cost report" details various hospital and financial statistical data relating to the patient care activities engaged in by the hospital during the sub- ject fiscal period. Upon receipt of the participating hospital's cost report for a fiscal period, HRS makes an initial determination based upon Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards of the hospital's total allow- able inpatient costs, charges, and total patient days during the subject fiscal period, and then determines an inpatient per diem reimbursement rate for the period. To the inpatient per diem reimburse- ment rate is then added a percentage allow- ance in lieu of making any further retroactive corrective adjustments in reimbursement which might have been due the hospital applicable to the reporting period. The adjusted inpa- tient per diem reimbursement rate is applied prospectively, and remains in effect until further adjustments in the rate are required. If HRS determines that total inpa- tient Medicaid reimbursement to a partici- pating hospital during a fiscal period exceeds the hospital's allowable and rea- sonable costs of rendering such covered inpatient services applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards, then the hospital is required to remit to HRS the amount of such overpayment. If, however, HRS determines that the total inpatient Medicaid reimbursement received by a participating hospital is less than the hospital's actual and reason- able costs of rendering such covered inpa- tient services to Medicaid patients during the period applying Medicare cost reimburse- ment principles and standards, no further retroactive corrective adjustments are made; provided, however, that should an overpayment occur in a fiscal period, it may be offset and applied retroactively against an under- payment to the participating hospital which occurred during the next preceding fiscal period only. HRS has used the following "percentage allowances" in determining Medicaid reimbursement rates for inpatient hospital services: a. January 1, 1970 - June 30, 1972 . . . 12 percent July 1, 1972 - approximately March 30, 1976 . . . . . . . . . . 9 percent Approximately March 31, 1976 - June 30, 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . 6 percent Since at least January 1, 1976, HRS has not recomputed the "percentage allowance" on an annual basis. Since at least January 1, 1976, HRS has not based the "percentage allowance" that it has applied in determining Medicaid inpatient hospital reimbursement rates upon hospital cost trends. HRS has used no technical methodology based upon hospital cost trends to develop any of the "percentage allowances." At least since January 1, 1974, HRS's "percentage allowances" have been less than the corresponding average annual increases in the costs incurred by Florida hospitals of providing inpatient hospital services. Prior to March 30, 1976, all of HRS's published regulations addressing reimbursement of participating hospitals for their costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients required HRS to reimburse such hospitals in accordance with Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. In certain internal documents, Petitioner's Exhibits P-44 and P-12, HRS states that the average costs of providing inpatient hospital services in the State of Florida rose at least 18 percent during calendar year 1975. In November, 1975, the Secretary of HRS was informed by HRS officials that HRS faced a projected budgetary deficit for its fiscal year ended June 30, 1976. A decision memorandum presented options to the HRS Secretary for reducing the projected deficit. Among such options presented to and approved by the HRS Secretary was to reduce the "percentage allowance" from 9 percent to 6 percent. The reduction of the "percentage allowance" by HRS from 9 percent to 6 percent was effected in response to HRS's projected deficit, and was not based upon an analysis of hospital cost trends. HRS incorporated the 6 percent "percentage allowance" into its administrative rules which were published on March 30, 1976. In response to objections raised by the Florida Hospital Association to the reduction in the percentage allowance by HRS from 9 percent to 6 percent, HRS officials reexamined that reduction. During HRS's reexamination of its previous "percentage allowance" reduction, HRS was aware of and acknowledged the fact that Florida hospital costs were increasing at an average annual rate in excess of both the earlier 9 percent and the resulting 6 percent "percentage allowance." In a memorandum dated September 13, 1976, from HRS official Charles Hall to the Secretary of HRS, Petitioner's Exhibit P-45, Charles Hall informed the Secretary that the methods and standards then used by HRS to reimburse participating hospitals for their costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients was out of compliance with federal requirements. Charles Hall further informed the Secretary that the reason HRS had not theretofore been cited by HEW for noncompliance was the manner in which the Florida State Plan had been drafted, i.e., that the State Plan required HRS to reimburse hospitals under Medicaid for the reasonable costs that they would have been reimbursed applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. In a letter dated September 20, 1976, Petitioner's Exhibit P-31, HEW informed HRS that HEW had received a complaint from the Florida Hospital Association that the methods HRS was actually using to reimburse hospitals for the costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients were in violation of Federal Regulation 45 C.F.R. Section 250.30(a). A proposed amendment to Florida's State Plan submitted by HRS to HEW in November, 1976, Petitioner's Exhibit P-49, if approved, would have allowed HRS to reimburse hospitals for the cost of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients under methods differing from Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards (an "alternative plan"). "Alternative plans" have been permitted under applicable federal regulations since October 21, 1974. A state participating in the Medicaid program may elect to establish an "alternative plan, but may not implement such "alternative plan" without the prior written approval of HEW. Florida has not had in effect an "alternative plan" of reimbursing participating hospitals for their costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients that was formally approved by HEW at any time prior to July 1, 1981. By letter dated January 7, 1977, Petitioner's Exhibit P-32, HEW notified HRS that it had formally cited HRS for noncompliance with federal regulations governing reimbursement of inpatient hospital services under Medicaid. HRS acknowledged their noncompliance and between November, 1976, and October 30, 1977, HRS attempted to revise its proposed "alternative plan" on at least two occasions in an attempt to obtain HEW approval. In October, 1977, HRS withdrew its proposed "alternative plan" then pending with HEW. HRS then contracted with an outside consultant, Alexander Grant & Company, to assist in the formulation of a new "alternative plan" proposal. In January, 1978, Alexander Grant & Company delivered its draft of an "alternative plan" to HRS. In October, 1978, HRS submitted a draft "alternative plan" to HEW for review and comment, and HEW expected HRS to submit a formal "alternative plan" proposal to HEW for its approval by November 1, 1978. HRS did not submit the formal "alternative plan" proposal to HEW until August 12, 1980. In a letter dated February 21, 1979, from Richard Morris, HEW Regional Medicaid Director, Region IV, to United States Senator Richard Stone of Florida, Mr. Morris advised Senator Stone: For more than two years the Florida Medicaid Program has not met Federal Requirements for inpatient hospital services reimbursement. Their payment methodology under-reimburses certain hospitals year after year. The pros- pective interim per diem rate paid by Florida to hospitals includes a percentage allowance to cover increased costs during the forthcom- ing year that is consistently less than increased costs in some hospitals. If the payments are less than costs, the difference is not reimbursed. This results in underpay- ments. We have worked closely with Florida to develop an acceptable alternative system that would meet Federal requirements. To date, Florida has not implemented such a system despite having received informal HEW agreement on a draft plan developed more than a year ago. It is our understanding that this alternative plan is not a high priority item at this time. We will continue to work with HRS staff to secure Florida compliance re- garding this requirement. Petitioner's Exhibit P-46. Since August 12, 1980, HRS has submitted to HEW for its approval at least four more versions of an "alternative plan." Petitioner's Exhibits P-120, P-121, P-123, and P-152. Each of these versions was approved by the Secretary of HRS, and HRS believes each to comply with applicable Florida law. Mr. Erwin Bodo, Ph.D., was and is the HRS official responsible for the development and drafting of Exhibits P-120, P-121, P-123, and P-152. In June, 1981, HEW approved an "alternative plan" for the State of Florida (Exhibit P-152), and such "alternative plan" was implemented effective July 1, 1981. Until July 1, 1981, HRS continued to use the 6 percent "percentage allowance" to compute inpatient hospital reimbursement under Medicaid. Even after its repeal, Rule 10C-7.39(6), Florida Administrative Code, is applied by respondent in calculating reimbursement for Medicaid services provided between March 30, 1976, and July 1, 1981. From November 20, 1976, until July 1, 1981--the period in which HRS was attempting to secure HEW approval for an alternative plan--HRS was aware that the costs of inpatient hospital se vices were increasing at an average annual rate in excess of the 6 percent "percentage allowance." From September 1, 1976, through July 1, 1981, HRS has been out of compliance with its a proved State Plan provisions, and HEW regulations governing reimbursement for inpatient hospital services under Medicaid because HRS's methods for reimbursing hospitals for the cost of providing those services to Medicaid patients have resulted in a substantial number of hospitals-- including petitioner--being reimbursed at a lower rate than the hospitals would have been reimbursed applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. Since the quarter ending December 31, 1976, until July 1, 1981, HEW has formally cited HRS as being in contravention of its approved State Plan provisions, and HEW (now HHS) regulations, governing reimbursement for inpatient hospital services under Medicaid because HRS's methods for reimbursing hospitals for the cost of providing those services to Medicaid patients have resulted in a substantial number of hospitals--including petitioner--being reimbursed at a lower rate than the hospitals would have been reimbursed applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. PAN AMERICAN HOSPITAL CORPORATION Petitioner, Pan American Hospital Corporation, is a not-for-profit corporation, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. Petitioner is a tax-exempt organization as determined by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. At all times pertinent to this controversy, petitioner has operated and continues to operate a duly licensed 146-bed, short-term acute care general hospital, located at 5959 Northwest Seventh Street, Miami, Florida 33126. At all times pertinent to this controversy, petitioner has been and continues to be a duly certified provider of inpatient hospital services, eligible to participate in the Florida Medicaid program since January 27, 1974. The appendix to this recommended order is a true and correct copy of the "Participation Agreement" entered into between petitioner and HRS, whereunder, inter alia, petitioner became eligible to receive payment from HRS for covered inpatient hospital services provided to Medicaid patients. At all times pertinent to this controversy, petitioner has been a certified "provider of services" participating in the Medicare program. During the fiscal periods in dispute in this action, petitioner did provide covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, and became eligible for payment by HRS of its reasonable costs of providing such services, determined in accordance with Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. With respect to each of the fiscal periods in dispute in this action, petitioner timely filed all cost reports and other financial data with HRS or its contracting agents, including Blue Cross of Florida, Inc., to enable HRS to determine petitioner's reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients. During each of the fiscal periods in dispute in this action, to reimburse petitioner for its reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, determined in accordance with applicable Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards. Such costs incurred by petitioner were reasonable, necessary, related to patient care, and less than customary charges within the meaning of those Medicare principles and standards. With respect to each of the fiscal periods in dispute, HRS and/or its contracting agent, Blue Cross of Florida, Inc., reviewed and audited the cost reports filed by petitioner, and as a result of such review and audits set or adjusted, as applicable, the Medicaid inpatient per diem reimbursement rate at which petitioner would be paid during the next succeeding fiscal period or until that rate was again adjusted. On May 3, 1976, a Notice of Program Reimbursement was issued to petitioner applicable to its fiscal year ended March 31, 1975, and setting forth the audited amount of petitioner's reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients during such period and the amount of interim Medicaid payments made to petitioner by HRS during the period in respect to those services. During its fiscal year ended March 31, 1975, petitioner received $86,469 less than its reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, and no retroactive corrective adjustment has been made in connection with such underpayment. On February 14, 1979, a Notice of Program Reimbursement was issued to petitioner applicable to its fiscal year ended March 31, 1976, and setting forth the audited amount of petitioner's reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients during such period and the amount of interim Medicaid payments made to petitioner by HRS during the period with respect to those services. During its fiscal year ended March 31, 1976, petitioner received $199,328 less than its reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, and no retroactive corrective adjustment has been made in connection with such underpayment. On September 29, 1978, a Notice of Program Reimbursement was issued to petitioner applicable to its fiscal year ended March 31, 1977, and setting forth the audited amount of petitioner's reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients during such period and the amount of interim Medicaid payments made to petitioner by HRS during the period with respect to those services. During its fiscal year ended March 31, 1977, petitioner received $6,083 less than its reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, and no retroactive corrective adjustment has been made in connection with such underpayment. On March 13, 1980, a Notice of Program Reimbursement was issued to petitioner applicable to its fiscal year ended March 31, 1978, and setting forth the audited amount of petitioner's reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients during such period and the amount of interim Medicaid payments made to petitioner by HRS during the period with respect to those services. During its fiscal year ended March 31, 1978, petitioner received $178,506 less than its reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, and no retroactive corrective adjustment has been made in connection with such underpayment. On June 30, 1981, a Notice of Program Reimbursement was issued to petitioner applicable to its fiscal year ended March 31, 1979, and setting forth the audited amount of petitioner's reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients during such period and the amount of interim Medicaid payments made to petitioner by HRS during the period with respect to those services. During its fiscal year ended March 31, 1979, petitioner received $302,347 less than its reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, and no retroactive corrective adjustment has been made in connection with such underpayment. On or about June 30, 1981, the audit of petitioner's Medicaid cost report for the period ending March 31, 1980, was concluded. A formal Notice of Program Reimbursement had not been issued at the time of the hearing. MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED Respondent contends that these proceedings should be summarily concluded "for failure to join an indispensable party," viz., the Federal Government, because it "is Respondent's intention, should any liability result from this action, to make a claim for federal financial participation as to approximately fifty-nine percent of such liability . . . [See generally] 42 U.S.C. Section 1320b-2(a)(2)." Motion to Dismiss, p. 2. This contention must fail for several reasons. Neither the Division of Administrative Hearings nor the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has the power or means to bring an unwilling party into a proceeding instituted pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (1979). At most, "the presiding officer may, upon motion of a party, or upon his own initiative enter an order requiring that the absent person be notified of the proceeding and be given an opportunity to be joined as a party of record." Rule 28-5.107, Florida Administrative Code. There exists no administrative writ for joining a non-petitioning party in a substantial interest proceeding in the way judicial process can join a party within a court's jurisdiction in a pending judicial proceeding. The two cases respondent cites in support of its motion, Bannon v. Trammell, 118 So. 167 (Fla. 1928), and Heisler v. Florida Mortgage Title and Bonding Co., 142 So.2d 242 (Fla. 1932), are inapposite, because both cases involve judicial, not administrative proceedings. HRS does not really seek joinder of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; instead, HRS argues that the petition should be dismissed and the controversy relegated to federal court because it "believes that the Secretary [of the United States Department of Health and Human Services] will not succumb voluntarily to the jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings." 2/ Motion to Dismiss, p. 3. Participation by the Department of Health and Human Services in the present proceedings would have been welcomed, as the Hearing Officer indicated at the prehearing conference, but neither the Department itself nor either of the parties requested such participation. In any event, petitioner is seeking additional reimbursement from respondent HRS, not from any federal agency. Medicaid providers like petitioner do not receive any funds directly from the Department of Health and Human Services. Since "[t]he contracts involved are clearly between the hospitals and [H]RS [, n]o third party requirement appears," Montana Deaconess Hospital v. Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, 538 P.2d 1021, 1024 (Mont. 1975), and the Department of Health and Human Services is not an indispensable party to administrative proceedings arising out of contracts between HRS and Medicaid providers. HRS protests that it might find itself making additional reimbursement to petitioner, yet be deprived of the federal component of such expenditures. See 42 U.S.C. Section 1396b. This prospect is an unlikely one in view of the fact that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has repeatedly cited HRS for noncompliance because of under-reimbursements to Medicaid providers. If the Federal Government fails to contribute to any additional reimbursement, it would not be for want of a forum in which HRS could present its claim. There are administrative mechanisms within the Department of Health and Human Services, including its Grant Appeals Board. See 42 U.S.C. Section 1116(d). After exhaustion of administrative remedies, HRS would have access to the courts, if necessary. See Georgia v. Califano, 446 F. Supp. 404 (N.D. Ga. 1977). There is no danger that HRS will be deprived of an opportunity to litigate any question about federal contribution because the United States Department of Health and Human Services is not a party to the present proceedings. MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Petitioner's motion for partial summary judgment was amended ore tenus at the final hearing to delete "and FYE March 31, 1981," on page 1 of the motion, after leave to amend was granted, without objection by respondent. As a technical matter, the motion is a misnomer, since substantial interest proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings eventuate in recommended orders, not judgments. But, petitioner's contention that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact is well founded. The parties have so stipulated. (T. 70; Mr. Weiss's letter of November 12, 1981.) At the time the petition was filed, the parties contemplated numerous factual disputes which, however, had all been resolved by the time of final hearing through the commendable efforts of counsel. In the absence of a disputed issue of material fact, the Administrative Procedure Act provides for informal proceedings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes (1979), "[u]nless otherwise agreed." Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (1979). On December 7, 1981, the parties filed their Stipulation and Agreement to proceed pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1979), notwithstanding the absence of any factual dispute. DISPUTE COGNIZABLE In the present case, as in Graham Contracting, Inc. v. Department of General Services, 363 So.2d 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), there "can be no doubt that the Department's contract . . . calls for agency action which potentially affects . . . substantial interests," 363 So.2d at 812, of the petitioning contractor. Cf. Solar Energy Control, Inc. v. State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 377 So.2d 746 (Fla 1st DCA 1979) (reh. den. 1980) (disappointed bidder substantially affected). See Section 120.52(10)(a), Florida Statutes (1979). In Graham Contracting, Inc. v. Department of General Services, 363 So.2d 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), the petitioner sought "additional money and construction time under its contract," 363 So.2d at 813, with a state agency. The court found "no difficulty . . . with sovereign immunity," 363 So.2d at 813, and held that a contractor with a state agency could invoke the Administrative Procedure Act in order to enforce its contract, even though the contract purported to establish another method for settling the contract dispute. A clause in the contract at issue in the Graham Contracting case contemplated agency action outside the parameters of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, in resolving certain disputes under the contract. In contrast, each of the successive contracts on which petitioner predicates its claim in the present case contains the following provision: "The hospital agrees to comply with the rules, policies, and procedures required by [HRS's] Division of Family Services for this program." Among the rules thus incorporated by reference into the contracts between petitioner and respondent is Rule 10C-7.35, Florida Administrative Code, which provides: An official representative of a facility participating in Medicaid, . . . or . . . representative, may appeal Medicaid Program policy, procedure, or administrative rulings whenever the provider feels there has been an unfair, illegal or inappropriate action by the Department affecting them or their facility. (1) Provider Appeals The Administrative Procedures [sic] Act, Chapter 120 F.S., provides for provider appeals and hearings, which are conducted by the Division of Administrative Hearings in the Department of Administration. The spe- cific rule relative to the appeal and hearing process is Chapter 28-3 [sic] of the Florida Administrative Rules. . . Since, by reference to Rule 10C-7.35, Florida Administrative Code, the contract in the present case incorporates Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, the applicability of the Administrative Procedure Act is even clearer here than in the Graham Contracting case. THE MERITS The parties have stipulated that petitioner has been reimbursed by respondent less than its reasonable costs of providing covered inpatient hospital services over the time period in question. Under-reimbursement of this kind is not authorized by Section 409.266, Florida Statutes, which incorporates the federal statutory requirement that hospitals which, like petitioner, provide Medicaid services be reimbursed by respondent for reasonable costs incurred, in accordance with an approved State Plan, and not some lesser amount. 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(a)(13)(B), Pub. L. 89-97, Section 121(a) redesignated 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(a)(13)(D), Pub. L. 90-248, Section 224(a). All Florida "State Plan provisions . . . approved by HEW and . . . govern[ing] HRS's reimbursement of inpatient hospital services prior to July 1, 1981, commit HRS to reimburse hospitals [like petitioner] that also participated in the Medicare program for their reasonable costs of providing inpatient hospital services to Medicaid patients, applying Medicare cost reimbursement principles and standards." Prehearing Stipulation, Paragraph 19. The record is clear. Respondent consistently reimbursed petitioner less than its reasonable costs of providing inpatient hospital services in order to cut its own expenses and in doing so jeopardized the entire Medicaid program. This cannot be condoned, even though respondent acted under color of law, viz., Rule 10C-7.39(6), Florida Administrative Code [now repealed and declared invalid; see Pan American Hospital Corporation v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, No. 81-1480R (DOAH; December 4, 1981)], and even though a lack of money or, at least, an apparent shortage was the reason for respondent's parsimony. The question remains, however, whether this dereliction on respondent's part should inure to the benefit of petitioner; and the answer turns on the construction of the agreement between the parties attached as an appendix to this order. Petitioner argues cogently that public policy has clearly been enunciated by statute to be full reimbursement for costs reasonably incurred by Medicaid providers in furnishing covered services. There can be no clearer expression of public policy than a statute duly enacted; and the reasons behind the full reimbursement policy are themselves compelling: to deal fairly with the providers, not only for fairness sake, but also to assure their participation in the program, and to remove any temptation to give indigent patients substandard care, inter alia. But, there is surely an overriding public policy requiring that a contractor with state government who voluntarily agrees to forego a claim against the public fisc be held to that agreement in administrative proceedings like these. The form agreement between petitioner and respondent, which they renewed annually, states: "It is understood that reimbursement will be made on the basis of an interim payment plan in the form of a per diem cost rate, plus a percentage allowance for the year in lieu of retroactive payment adjustment. However, . . . in the event the hospital did not receive its audited reasonable costs in the year prior to the current year then the hospital may deduct from the refund the prior year deficiency." (Emphasis supplied.) The agreement thus contemplated under-reimbursement and specified the method for recoupment, if there was to be any. Any "retroactive payment adjustment," as the result of administrative proceedings or otherwise, is specifically ruled out. Elsewhere in the parties' agreement is found this language: [T]he fiscal responsibility of [respondent's] Division of Family Services is subjected [sic] to the appropriation and availability of funds to the Medicaid program . . . by the state legislature every year." The terms of the agreement make clear that under-reimbursement is not in itself a breach. Respondent's failure to compute annually a "new percentage . . . based on hospital cost trends" was attributable to a shortage of funds; and the agreement provided that respondent's "fiscal responsibility" was subject to just such a shortage. In sum, provisions of the agreement petitioner voluntarily entered into with respondent operate in much the same way as a liquidated damages clause and preclude the relief petitioner seeks. Petitioner's invocation of the parol evidence rule is unavailing. Even if the stipulated facts outside the four corners of the form agreement are looked to, the course of dealing between these parties buttresses the construction outlined above. The fact that respondent may have settled a case it litigated against another hospital in some other way, as asserted by petitioner, is technically irrelevant.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny the prayer of the petitioner for additional reimbursement. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 1981.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Central Florida Surgical Ambulatory Center be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1985.
The Issue This case arises out of Orlando Regional Medical Center's objection to the issuance of a Certificate of Need to Surgical Services of Orlando, Inc., for the construction and operation of an ambulatory surgical center in Orlando, Florida. At the formal hearing, Orlando Regional Medical Center called as witnesses, Herbert E. Straughn, Norton Baker, Terry Weibley, Marlene Mariani, Michael L. Schwartz, Janice Smith, Richard Douglas Signer, Cathy Canniff Gillam, Jack Bradley, Barbara W. Miner, John Bozard and Stephen Haar. The Intervenor, Surgical Services of Orlando, Inc., called as witnesses, Steven Haar, Janice Smith, John Bozard, Michael Means, Jerry Senne, James Leveretee, Stephen Foreman, John S. Lord, Robert C. Klettner, Albert S. Bustamante, Pedro Diaz- Borden, Alberto J. Herran, Marianna Johnson, Richard Toole, Don Newton, Hank Gerken, Gordon Kiester, Leonard J. Levine, Rufus Holloway, Brenda Brinkman, Betty Barker, Wayne Deschambeau, Mark Richardson and Rick Knapp. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services called as its only witness, Mr. Thomas Porter. Surgical Services of Orlando, Inc., offered and had admitted into evidence 33 exhibits. At the formal hearing, the Hearing Officer reserved ruling upon SSO Exhibit No. 14 and that exhibit is admitted. Orlando Regional Medical Center offered and had admitted into evidence, 9 exhibits. At the formal hearing, the Hearing Officer reserved ruling upon SSO Exhibit No. 14 and that exhibit is admitted. Orlando Regional Medical Center offered and had admitted into evidence, 9 exhibits. At the formal hearing, Orlando Regional Medical Center was given permission to file a late-filed exhibit with Surgical Services of Orlando, Inc., and the Department having the opportunity to object to said exhibit. That exhibit has been filed as Orlando Regional Medical Center Exhibit No. 9 and consists of excerpts from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services file relating to this application. That exhibit is admitted. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services offered and had admitted into evidence one exhibit. A map of Orlando reflecting the location of the various hospitals in Orange County was admitted as joint exhibit 1. Subsequent to the formal hearing, each of the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are inconsistent with this order, they were considered by the Hearing Officer and rejected as being unsupported by the evidence or as unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact Surgical Services of Orlando, Inc., (hereafter referred to as SSO), is a Florida corporation based in Orlando, Florida. The stock of the corporation is owned in equal shares by Steven Foreman, Dr. Rufus Holloway and Randall Phillips. Mr. Steven Foreman is a life underwriter and financial consultant, and real estate investor in the Orlando area. He is secretary and director of SSO. Dr. Rufus Holloway is an otolaryngologist in the Orlando area and is treasurer and a director of SSO. Randall Phillips is a hospital administrator presently employed by American Medical International, Inc. Orlando Regional Medical Center, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as ORMC) is an existing hospital located in Orlando, Florida. It is a not-for-profit regional tertiary care center with 1035 beds and 24 operating rooms. ORMC has two main divisions, the Orange Division and the Holiday Division and is presently constructing a new facility, Sand Lake Division, which will open sometime in mid 1985. The Sand Lake Division will have 4 operating rooms and 150 beds. Dr. Rufus Holloway and Steven Foreman have committed their personal resources to provide financial support for the complete development and operation of the applicant's proposed ambulatory surgical center. The facility will be constructed by a partnership, the Kaley Avenue Medical Partnership of Dr. Holloway, Mr. Foreman and Richard Toole, a citrus owner in the Orlando area, and will be leased to SSO. Two banks in the Orlando area have given commitments to provide the necessary financing for the proposed facility and start-up expenses. Pan American Bank has committed to provide a $2.5 million loan for the construction and equipping of the building and $750,000 line of credit. Dr. Holloway and Mr. Foreman, and the parties of the Kaley Avenue Partnership have sufficient financial resources to fulfill their commitments to the proposed project. The proposed building will be a one floor building containing 15,000 square feet. The total cost for the project will be $2,737,636. The building is to be constructed and equipped by the Kaley Avenue Medical Partnership and leased to SSO at $16 per square foot. The proposed site of the facility is on Kaley Avenue within two or three blocks of ORMC. Its service area will include all of Orange County. The facility will contain five operating rooms with only three of the rooms being completely equipped initially. These rooms will be used for general and local anesthesia. The remaining two rooms will be equipped as demand requires. The applicant has budgeted $743,000 for initially equipping the facility with an additional $160,000 required to equip the two remaining operating rooms. The equipment proposed by the applicant is adequate to perform those procedures which the applicant proposed to perform at its facility. In addition to the five operating rooms, the center will include laboratory, x-ray, administrative areas, as well as holding and recovery areas for the patients. The applicant projects a total number of procedures in the first year of 1,800 and 2,760 in the second year of operation. Based upon a Medicare utilization rate of 15 percent SSO projects an operating loss in the first year of $223,000 with the facility making a profit in the second quarter of the second year and generating a total profit of $766,000 in the second year. The projected break-even point is 2,448 procedures within a year. Projected revenues are based upon an average charge per case of $575. SSO also intends to accept Medicaid patients. Presently, Medicaid does not reimburse freestanding ambulatory surgical centers. Medicaid charges would be included as charity cases in the projected bad debt of 6 percent of gross revenues. Based upon an inflation rate of 8 percent per annum when SSO begins operation in January, 1986, its average charge per case will be competitive with other facilities in the area providing ambulatory surgical services. Medicare now reimburses 100 percent of the facility charges in a freestanding ambulatory facility and 80 percent for outpatient surgery in a hospital setting. Prior to opening, SSO will implement a marketing program directed to four different target groups: physicians, consumers (patients), employers and insurance carriers. SSO has retained a marketing expert who has prior experience in marketing ambulatory surgical care in Florida. Similar marketing has proven successful for other freestanding ambulatory surgical centers in Florida. SSO has budgeted $20,000 for pre-opening marketing expenses and $35,000 for the first year of operation. It is difficult upon this record to make a truly accurate comparison of outpatient surgical rates in existing facilities to the proposed average charge of SSO. ORMC presented evidence that the present average charge in ORMC and three other hospitals per outpatient case is as follows: ORMC $417.19 Florida Hospital $469.86 Winter Park $512.21 Orlando General $560.81 No average charges were presented into evidence for West Orange Hospital, Lucerne Hospital, or Brookwood Hospital. The evidence established that 8 percent is a reasonable inflation or increase rate for health care charges over the next two years. Applying an 8 percent inflation rate to the above average charges these charges for 1986, SSO's first year of operation would be: ORMC $486.61 Florida Hospital 548.04 Winter Park 597.44 Orlando General 654.13 In calculating its present average charge of $417.19, ORMC did not include those outpatient surgeries performed at the Orange Division which are charged at inpatient rates. A memo dated January 19, 1984, to John Bozard, ORMC Vice President for Finance, from Steve Horr, ORMC Assistant Controller/Reimbursement, reflects that Holiday Division had 484 outpatient surgical cases which are estimated to generate gross revenues of $228,547. This results in an average charge per case for the month of December 1983 of $472.20. It is concluded that in 1986 the SSO projected average charge of $575 will be competitive with those existing facilities in the Orange County area. There is presently no rule which contains a specific methodology for determining need for ambulatory surgery centers. HRS uses a methodology which is based upon policy but has not been proposed or promulgated as a formal rule. The present methodology utilizes the total surgery cases for the most recent 12 month period to determine a surgical utilization rate per 1,000 population. By separating inpatient and outpatient surgeries for the same 12-month period, a percentage ratio of outpatient surgery cases to total surgeries is established. Applying the utilization rate to future projected population, HRS then determines the total projected surgeries for future years and from this number calculates the projected outpatient surgeries which will be performed in existing facilities. Literature relating to ambulatory surgeries projects that 18 to 40 percent of all surgical procedures performed could be performed in an outpatient setting. In calculating total potential surgeries HRS utilizes 29 percent as the potential surgeries that can be performed in an outpatient setting. The 29 percent factor is the mean of 18 percent to 40 percent and appears reasonable in light of the fact ORMC, Holiday Division, Winter Park Memorial and Orlando General had outpatient surgery of 29.4 percent, 30.1 percent and 30.6 percent respectively for 1983. Applying the 29 percent factor to projected total surgeries, HRS calculates the projected potential ambulatory surgery for a given year in the future. Subtracting those outpatient surgeries which will be performed in existing facilities from the total potential outpatient surgeries provides the unmet need for outpatient surgical care. This need is reflected in total cases. In evaluating ambulatory surgical applications, HRS utilizes a two year planning horizon. It is projected that SSO would begin operation January 1, 1986, and therefore under the HRS methodology, 1986 and 1987 become the relevant years for the HRS methodology, 1986 and 1987 became the relevant years for looking at projected need. Using the methodology described above, HRS projects the potential number of outpatient surgical cases which could be performed in other than a hospital setting to be 7,203 and 7,347 for 1986 and 1987, respectively. HRS projects the break-even level of the SSO facility at 2,693 surgical cases per year. Subtracting the SSO break-even factor from 7,203 and 7,347 results in an unmet need even after the SSO facility is in operation of 4,510 and 4,654 surgical cases in 1986 and 1987. HRS calculated the outpatient utilization rate in existing hospitals in 1983 to be 15.3 percent. If the unmet need of 4,510 and 4,654 in 1986 and 1987 was met by these existing facilities, that utilization rate would increase to 24 percent or approximately 1 1/2 times the 1983 rate. The projected utilization for the SSO facility for 1986 and 1987 will constitute only about 20 percent and 30 percent respectively of the unmet need for outpatient surgery in those years. The applicant in projecting need used a five year planning horizon to project need for ambulatory surgical services in Orange County for the year 1989. Under SSO's methodology, an outpatient utilization rate of 30 percent, 35 percent and 40 percent was used to project the total potential outpatient or ambulatory surgeries for the year assuming a total surgical utilization rate of 101.45 cases per thousand. Using these assumptions, the applicant projected unmet need for ambulatory surgeries in Orange County in 1989 as: Percentage of Ambulatory Surgery Unmet Need 30% 6,357 35% 9,246 40% 12,136 Although the projected unmet need is somewhat lower than that projected by HRS, it does reflect a need for the SSO facility. The methodology used by ORMC utilizes what ORMC's experts described as the "excess capacity theory." This methodology is based upon the assumption that no need exists for an ambulatory surgical center until such time as all excess capacity in the existing operating suites in Orange County is utilized. Using this approach, ORMC contends that of the 79 total operating suites in Orange County, there are presently 39 excess operating suites available to perform outpatient surgery. By multiplying total number of hours per day per operating room times 260 days, ORMC calculates the total available hours of operation of an operating suite and by multiplying this number times the total number of suites, the total available hours or operating room time for a facility is determined. The total available hours is then divided by the average operating room time for all procedures performed to determine the total number of potential procedures. Using this approach, ORMC's expert opined that there is potential for 95,513 - 98,980 total surgical cases in the existing 79 operating rooms in Orange County These 79 rooms include the 4 new operating suites in ORMC's Sand Lake facility as well as the 4 suite in Florida Hospital's new freestanding ambulatory surgical center. Subtracting the total procedures of 47,712 from the potential capacity, ORMC projects an available excess capacity for growth of 47,801 to 51,268 surgical cases in Orange County. Also using total available hours, hours per average procedure and total hours required for procedure presently being performed, ORMC's expert calculated the number of operating suites presently required. By subtracting this number from the number of existing suites, the ORMC expert concluded that there are presently 39 excess operating suites in Orange County. Once the ORMC Sand Lake facility and the Florida Hospital Freestanding Ambulatory Center (FAC) open, there will be a total or 79 operating suites in Orange County. These are divided as follows: ORMC, Orange Division 14 ORMC, Holiday Division 10 Winter Park Memorial 10 Orlando General 4 West Orange 3 Lucerne 8 Brookewood 5 Florida Hospital 17 Florida Hospital, FAC 4 ORMC, Sand Lake 4 79 At present, ORMC, Holiday Division, is the only facility operating dedicated ambulatory surgical suites. There are no applications pending for dedicated outpatient facilities within hospitals or for a freestanding ambulatory surgical facility. No such applications have been filed for these types of facilities since the SSO application was filed. Each of the existing facilities listed above performs outpatient surgery to some degree. On August 16, 1982, Florida Hospital was issued a Certificate of Need to construct a freestanding ambulatory surgical center. That facility will contain four operating suites and is expected to begin operation in mid 1984. Once this facility is complete, Florida Hospital will not perform outpatient surgery in its 17 other suites, except when special equipment which is available only in those suites is required. Outpatient surgery at Winter Park Memorial and Orlando General now comprises approximately 30 percent of the total surgeries performed at those facilities. Lucerne Hospital operates no separate ambulatory surgery unit and favors SSO's application. ORMC has been performing outpatient surgery for over 20 years. However, the specific facilities in which outpatient surgery has been performed have changed during this period of time. Prior to August 1979, outpatient surgery was performed at the Five North unit in the Orange Division as well as at the Holiday Division. At that time, Orange Five North was closed for renovation and outpatient surgery was concentrated in Holiday One East. In October 1981, an outpatient surgery review committee was established by ORMC to examine more efficient ways to conduct outpatient surgery and to improve utilization of certain departments at the Holiday Division. The end result was a decision to concentrate outpatient surgery at ORMC in one designated unit to be known as Outpatient Day Surgery ("ODS"), and to provide a financial incentive for physicians and patients to utilize the unit. One of the primary reasons for concentrating outpatient surgery in Holiday One East was the inefficiency and increased cost of staffing the units. Outpatient census counts were resulting in overstaffing the 3 to 11 shift. To encourage doctors and patients to utilize Holiday One East, ORMC reduced the rates for outpatient surgery in the ODS unit by approximately 40 percent. Although some outpatient surgery continues to be performed at the Orange Division the charge for such surgeries is at the inpatient rates rather than the reduced rates utilized by the ODS. The ORMC Board of Directors approved the capital expenditure to renovate the Holiday One East area into the ODS unit on September 20, 1982. The ODS unit was renovated at a cost of approximately $600,000, which was below the Certificate of Need threshold requirement. The ODS unit opened on November 28, 1983. The ODS unit is open Monday through Friday, and utilizes a ten hour day with general anesthesia administered to outpatients from 7:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. ODS patients use a separate and distinct entrance to the Holiday Division and have a designated parking area east of the hospital. There are sixteen semi- private holding beds and four recliner chairs located within the ODS unit. The average case load and length of stay are such that holding beds may be used for more than one outpatient per day. As a result of instances where there have been shortages of holding beds for outpatients, ORMC beginning April 2, 1984, established an overflow area of ten beds on the third floor of the Holiday Division. As of May 29, 1984, this overflow area had been utilized on three occasions. The ODS unit contains two dedicated operating rooms where only local anesthesia can be administered. Outpatient procedures requiring general anesthesia are performed in the eight general operating suites of the Holiday Division. These eight operating suites are also used for inpatient surgery. Outpatients are placed in the same holding and recovery areas where inpatients are held. The staff in these areas serve inpatients and outpatients. The ODS unit averages 15 to 16 outpatients per day. In 1983, outpatient surgery comprised 29.4 percent of the total surgeries performed at the Holiday Division. This was a slight increase over the 27.7 percent outpatient percentage for that same division for the previous year. Presently, the two dedicated local anesthesia rooms are being utilized approximately 40 percent of the time. The present utilization rate of the entire Holiday Division is approximately 50 to 55 percent to as much as 80 percent depending upon the particular day of the week. The 80 percent rate is attained on a regular basis at least once per week. ORMC has been issued a Certificate of Need for a children's hospital. As presently designed and approved, the construction of the children's hospital will require the demolition of Holiday One East where the ODS unit is located. It is uncertain where the ODS unit would be relocated. The master facility plan approved by the ORMC Board of Directors includes the construction of a freestanding ambulatory diagnostic center which will include ambulatory surgery. Depending upon the staff and its efficiency and the quality of care provided, a freestanding ambulatory center offers several advantages over outpatient units within hospitals. In such a freestanding facility, only outpatient surgery is performed and the staff and physicians, including anesthesiologists, can be specialized in outpatient surgery. In the freestanding facility, outpatients are not mixed with inpatients. A substantial portion of those patients utilizing outpatient surgery are well patients having elective surgery performed. By specializing in outpatient surgery only, overall operating costs are likely to be less and should result in reduced patient costs. In a hospital setting, there is on occasion a problem with "bumping" elective surgery for emergencies. This would not occur in a freestanding ambulatory surgery facility. Patients will have shorter waits in the facility and Medicare patients will be reimbursed 100 percent rather than the 80 percent reimbursed in a hospital setting. The 550 application is consistent with the applicable criteria enumerated in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes and need for its facility exists in Orange County. Of the thirteen governing criteria, the parties have stipulated that the criteria contained in Subsections 6, 7, 10 and 11 of Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, are not applicable to this proceeding. In addition, the parties stipulated that Subsection 1 of Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, is not applicable to this proceeding to the extent that there is no applicable district health plan or state health plan pertaining to ambulatory or outpatient surgery.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED That HRS issue a Certificate of Need to Surgical Services of Orlando, Inc., to construct and operate a freestanding, five operating room ambulatory surgery center in Orange County. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esq. CULPEPPER, TURNER & MANNERED 318 North Call on Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3300 Fred W. Baggett, Esq. ROBERTS, BAGGETT, LaFACE, RICHARD, & WISER P.O. Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 E. G. Boone, Esq. P.O. Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Steven R. Bechtel, Esq. MATEER, HARBERT, FREY BECHTEL AND PHALIN, PA P.O. Box 2854 Orlando, Florida 32802 P. Joseph Wright, Esq. MURRAH AND DOYLE, P.A. P.O. Box 1328 Winter Park, Florida 32790 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the proposed agency action challenged by Petitioner improperly relies on a rule that is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority; and whether Petitioner has met its burden to prove that it properly adjusted a hospital’s bill for implants used in connection with an injured worker’s scheduled outpatient surgery when judged by a lawful standard.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for administration of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Ch. 440, Fla. Stat. The Department has exclusive jurisdiction to decide any matters concerning reimbursement under the Workers’ Compensation Law. See § 440.13(11)(c), Fla. Stat. Petitioner is a carrier as defined by section 440.13(1)(c). Florida Hospital, a non-party, is a health care provider as defined by section 440.13(1)(f) and (g). Under Florida’s statutory workers’ compensation system, injured workers report their injury to their employer and/or workers’ compensation insurance carrier. See Ch. 440, Fla. Stat. As a condition of eligibility for payment, a health care provider who renders services to an injured worker must receive authorization from the carrier before providing treatment. The only noted exception is emergency care, in which case, if a hospital admission occurs after emergency treatment, the carrier must be notified by the hospital within 24 hours as a condition to eligibility for payment. § 440.13(3), Fla. Stat. A health care provider providing necessary remedial treatment, care, or attendance to any injured worker must submit treatment reports to the carrier in a format prescribed by the Department. § 440.13(4)(a), Fla. Stat. In addition, after providing treatment, health care providers must submit their bills to the carriers. These bills include line items for various 4 Petitioner seeks a final order declaring a Department rule invalid. However, that can only be the result of a rule challenge under section 120.56, Florida Statutes. Here, the petition raised the invalidity of a rule as a defense to the proposed agency action which is challenged in this substantial interests proceeding. See § 120.57(1)(e)2., Fla. Stat. Proceedings initiated pursuant to section 120.57(1), including those in which defenses are raised under section 120.57(1)(e), are resolved by recommended order. health-care-related services and supplies, such as implants, pharmacy, and X-rays. The carrier may pay, adjust,5 or dispute line items in a bill on certain conditions: if a carrier finds that overutilization of medical services or a billing error has occurred, or there is a violation of the practice parameters and protocols of treatment established in accordance with chapter 440, it must disallow or adjust payment for such services or error. The disallowance or adjustment may only occur if the carrier, in making its determination, has complied with section 440.13 and the rules adopted by the Department. § 440.13(6), Fla. Stat. To adjust or disallow line items in a bill, the carrier must submit an Explanation of Bill Review (EOBR) to the health care provider. An EOBR is the “document used to provide notice of payment or notice of adjustment, disallowance or denial by a claim administrator, or any entity acting on behalf of an insurer to a health care provider containing code(s) and code descriptor(s), in conformance with subsection 69L-7.740(13), F.A.C.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-7.710(1)(y). If a health care provider wants to contest a carrier’s disallowance or adjustment of payment, it must file a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute Form (Petition for Resolution) with the Department within 45 days after receipt of the EOBR from the carrier. § 440.13(7)(a), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-31.003. Coventry Health Care (Coventry) is a third-party entity that maintains a network of contracts with health care providers. Essentially, Petitioner is a third-party beneficiary of the rates negotiated between Florida Hospital and Coventry. 5 “Adjust” means payment is made with modification to the information provided on the bill. Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-7.710(1)(b). At all times relevant to the facts of this case, Florida Hospital and Petitioner had a Coventry-negotiated PPO contract in place. The contract permitted a five percent discount for hospital outpatient services. Florida Hospital filed a Petition for Resolution with attachments, dated May 29, 2019, with the Department. Through that Petition for Resolution, Florida Hospital requested resolution of disputed carrier adjustments to a bill tendered to Petitioner for payment for services rendered to a workers’ compensation patient on December 26, 2018. Florida Hospital’s Petition for Resolution included its entire bill of charges for payment by Petitioner; however, the only items at issue are adjustments to two charges for implants that are designated on Florida Hospital’s bill as C1778 and C1767. Florida Hospital’s bill included charges of $45,961.00 for C1778 and $161,564.60 for C1767.6 The implant charges at issue were for implants used in connection with scheduled outpatient surgery for the injured worker. Petitioner does not dispute the medical necessity of the implants, nor does Petitioner dispute that the charges on the bill were Florida Hospital’s actual charges for these implants pursuant to its chargemaster. Instead, Petitioner asserts that the undersigned and the Department cannot use the implant reimbursement standard that was used by the Department in its proposed agency action, because that standard, promulgated as a rule, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. 6 The parties stipulate that C1767 was divided into two line items. In this Recommended Order, the amounts billed and/or paid for C1767 are referred to as a total of the two line items. Applicable Reimbursement Standard The Department contends that the applicable implant reimbursement standard is contained in chapter 6 of the 2014 edition of the Florida Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals (Hospital Manual), promulgated as a rule and incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.501. Chapter 6 contains the outpatient reimbursement schedules. The introduction to this chapter provides, in pertinent part: Pursuant to section 440.13(12)(a), F.S., all compensable charges for hospital outpatient care shall be reimbursed at 75 percent of usual and customary charges for medically necessary services and supplies, except as otherwise specified in this Chapter. The exception is for scheduled outpatient surgery, which shall be reimbursed at 60 percent of usual and customary charges. Usual and customary charges are reimbursed based on average charges of outpatient hospital bills, by CPT® code and HCPCS® Level II code, in a specific geographic area. Please see Appendix A of this Manual for the adopted geographic modifiers by county and Appendices B and C for a listing of the Base Rates by CPT® code and HCPCS® Level II code for non-scheduled outpatient services and scheduled surgical services. In the absence of a CPT® or HCPCS® Level II procedure code in the applicable Appendix or a mutually agreed upon contract between the hospital and the insurer/employer, reimbursement shall be made at the applicable percentage of the hospital’s usual and customary charge. (emphasis added). Specific to surgical implant reimbursement, the Hospital Manual provides at page 23 as follows: Reimbursement for surgical implant(s), also referred to as “other implant” by the National Uniform Billing Manual, and associated disposable instrumentation required during outpatient surgery billed under Revenue Code 278 shall be determined by one of the following methods: For those utilized during unscheduled surgeries, surgical implants and associated disposable instrumentation shall be reimbursed seventy-five percent (75%) of the hospital’s usual and customary charge; or For those utilized during scheduled surgeries, surgical implants and associated disposable instrumentation shall be reimbursed sixty percent (60%) of the hospital’s usual and customary charge; or According to a mutually agreed upon contract between the hospital and the insurer/employer. Note: Since there are no CPT or HCPCS level II codes for implants and associated disposable instrumentation incorporated into Appendices B or C, pursuant to the description of usual and customary charges provided in the Introduction of this chapter, these items are reimbursed at the applicable percentage of the hospital’s usual and customary charge. The Introduction section of chapter 6 properly sets forth the statutory reimbursement standard for hospitals providing scheduled outpatient surgery, “which shall be reimbursed at 60 percent of usual and customary charges.” (Hospital Manual, Ch. 6 Introduction, p. 21). Although the Hospital Manual correctly describes the statutory reimbursement standard as generally applicable to hospital scheduled outpatient surgery bills, the Hospital Manual nonetheless creates an exception to that reimbursement standard for implants. The Hospital Manual states that in the absence of a CPT or HCPCS Level II procedure code—the tools the Department chose to measure usual and customary charges—or a mutually agreed upon contract between the hospital and the insurer/employer, reimbursement shall be made at 60 percent of the hospital’s usual and customary charge. Because CPT or HCPCS Level II procedure codes do not exist for implants and the Coventry-negotiated PPO contract does not specifically address reimbursement for surgical implants utilized during hospital outpatient scheduled surgeries, the Department rule provides the reimbursement standard of 60 percent of the hospital’s usual and customary charge. Since the statutory reimbursement standard for all compensable charges for scheduled outpatient surgeries is “60 percent of usual and customary charges” as recognized by the Hospital Manual, then that is the applicable reimbursement standard for implants used by hospitals in scheduled outpatient surgery for injured workers. The portion of the Department’s rule, creating an exception to the applicable reimbursement standard for implants, solely because there are no CPT or HCPCS level II codes for implants, is contrary to the statute it purports to implement. Further, the substituted reimbursement standard for implants, allowing a hospital to be reimbursed at the hospital’s usual and customary charges, rather than the usual and customary charges by all hospitals in the same geographical area, is contrary to the statute it purports to implement. Petitioner’s Evidence Offered to Prove “Usual and Customary Charges” Both in the carrier response submitted to the Department for its Reimbursement Dispute Resolution and at the hearing in this case, Petitioner correctly contended that the appropriate reimbursement standard is “usual and customary charges” by hospitals in Florida Hospital’s community/area. However, neither in the carrier response nor at the hearing in this case did Petitioner offer evidence of the usual and customary charges of hospitals in Florida Hospital’s community or area for implants used in scheduled outpatient surgeries. Petitioner presented the testimony of its expert in medical billing, who testified that in her experience the usual and customary hospital markup for implants in Florida is 3.5 times the invoice cost of the implants. She referred to this as the “standard industry markup.” Using this standard—invoice cost times 3.5—Petitioner contends that it properly adjusted Florida Hospital’s bill for implants. The invoice cost for C1778 was $5,000.00 and the invoice cost for C1767 was $18,500.00. Petitioner’s adjustments cannot be found to be proper as it is based on a reimbursement standard that is not set forth in either the statute or the Department rule. If, as the Department’s rule specifies is generally true for scheduled outpatient surgery, the proper reimbursement standard is usual and customary charges by hospitals in the provider’s geographic area, then it was incumbent on Petitioner to prove it properly adjusted the charges based on the proper measure: the usual and customary charges by hospitals in the provider’s geographic area for implants used in scheduled outpatient surgery. Usual and customary charges are calculated based on the average charges of outpatient hospital bills in a specific geographic area. (See Hospital Manual, Ch. 6 Introduction, p. 21). Invoice cost times 3.5 is a different standard—a different measure—than usual and customary charges. As the Department recognized, charges for implants can vary greatly.7 The 7 The Department’s witness, Ms. Metz, testified that the Department is unable to use usual and customary charges in Florida Hospital’s geographical area when determining the amount of reimbursement for implants because it cannot determine a fixed reimbursement rate for something that has such a widely variable charge. Surgical implants, she testified, can range in cost from $25 to thousands of dollars and, as such, the Department cannot justify using a fixed rate for one particular implant. The difficulty in determining what the usual and customary charges in the community are does not relieve the Department of its responsibility to use that standard in determining the reimbursement amount. average charge, considering all hospital charges for implants (or specific types of implants) used in scheduled outpatient surgeries in the specific geographic area, would be the usual and customary charge. The Department does use a reimbursement standard that starts with the invoice cost and adds a markup for implants, but not in the context of hospital scheduled outpatient surgeries. A cost-plus reimbursement standard applies to implants used in connection with hospital inpatient surgeries.8 That reimbursement standard, codified in chapter 5 of the Hospital Manual, does not apply here. The Hospital Manual adopts a rule standard for defining a hospital’s community, which is considered the county in which the hospital is located. Petitioner offered no evidence under any reimbursement standard that was limited to Florida Hospital’s community. Instead, Petitioner’s expert only offered testimony regarding the “industry standard markup” for implants statewide. For this reason, too, Petitioner’s evidence fails to address the reimbursement standard it says is applicable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Administrative Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JODI-ANN V. LIVINGSTONE 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 18th day of September, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert B. Bennett, Esquire Bennett, Jacobs and Adams, P.A. Post Office Box 3300 Tampa, Florida 33601 (eServed) John R. Darin, Esquire Bennett, Jacobs and Adams, P.A. 1925 East Second Avenue Post Office Box 3300 Tampa, Florida 33601 (eServed) Thomas Nemecek, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers’ Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Keith C. Humphrey, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers’ Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations 3/ and admissions of the parties, the exhibits received in evidence, and the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact: FIRST HOSPITAL's address is the World Trade Center, Suite 870, Norfolk, Virginia 23510. CHARTER GLADE HOSPITAL is a freestanding psychiatric hospital located in Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. CHARTER GLADE has (80) licensed psychiatric beds, and twenty-four (24) licensed substance-abuse beds. The service area served by CHARTER GLADE includes Collier, Lee, and Charlotte Counties. The address of HRS is 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. HRS is responsible for the administration of the "Health Facilities and Health Services Planning Act," Section 381.493, et seq., Florida Statutes (the Act), and has implemented its provisions through the adoption of rules set forth in Chapter 10, Florida Administrative Code. FIRST HOSPITAL applied to HRS for a certificate of need (CON) for the establishment of a freestanding specialty hospital in Naples, Florida. Pursuant to the Act, a CON is required before FIRST HOSPITAL can establish its specialty hospital. FIRST HOSPITAL's application was denied by HRS. FIRST HOSPITAL appealed the denial of its application to the Division of Administrative Hearings, DOAH Case No. 84-1835. CHARTER GLADE has intervened in DOAH Case No. 84-1835. In this proceeding, Petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule 10- 5.11(25) and (26), Florida Administrative Code, asserting that the rule is arbitrary and capricious and, therefore, invalid. By virtue of the fact that CHARTER GLADE is an existing facility located in the same service area in which Petitioner proposes to construct and operate its facility, and further by virtue of its participation in DOAH Case No. 84-1835, at least in part, on the basis of the provisions of Rule 10 15.11(25) and (26), Florida Administrative Code, CHARTER GLADE is substantially affected by the issues presented for determination in this cause and should be allowed to participate as a party. The Act contemplates rule adoption by HRS of specialty bed-need methodologies for psychiatric services. See, e.g., Subsection 381.494(8)(g), Florida Statutes (1983). Toward this end, HRS has adopted Rules 10-5.11(25) and (26), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 10-5.11(25), cited as the basis for denying FIRST HOSPITAL's CON application, addresses need for short-term psychiatric beds; Rule 10-5.11(26) purports to address need for long-term psychiatric beds. FIRST HOSPITAL's substantial interest in establishing its proposed specialty hospital has been determined by both of these rules. In particular, Rule 10-5.11(25), Florida Administrative Code, was applied by HRS in the denial of FIRST HOSPITAL's CON application. In addition, FIRST HOSPITAL alleges that Rules 10-5.11(25) and (26) combined fail to assess the need for intermediate inpatient specialty psychiatric services, one of the types of psychiatric services proposed by FIRST HOSPITAL. FIRST HOSPITAL's CON application proposes intermediate inpatient specialty psychiatric services. Rules 10-5.11(25) and (26), Florida Administrative Code, were adopted in early 1983. The adoption process began in the summer of 1982 when HRS assigned to one of its employees, Elfie Stamm, the task of developing a bed-need rule for psychiatric services. Ms. Stamm, at that time, was a planner in the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning of HRS. Ms. Stamm has been a planner with HRS for several years and had been responsible for the development of the State Health Plan and for the development of various rules used in the CON process. She had also been employed in the Mental Health Program Office of HRS, where her responsibilities included the development of a state plan with regard to alcoholism and mental health. She was also responsible for monitoring statewide mental health programs. Upon being assigned the task of developing the subject rules, Ms. Stamm made a thorough review of all information available to HRS with regard to the number of existing psychiatric beds and programs throughout Florida. She also evaluated all available local health plans and spoke with various individuals who had been involved in health planning, particularly those with interest in mental health planning. Ms. Stamm surveyed the available literature on health planning emphasizing mental health planning and bed-need methodologies for psychiatric beds. Ms. Stamm wrote the initial draft of Rule 10-5.11(25) based upon her collection and evaluation of data regarding existing and approved psychiatric beds in Florida and her review of literature, both Florida specific and national. A primary feature of the drafts, as well as of the adopted version, of Rule 10-5.11(25) is a fixed bed-to-population ratio of .35/1000, meaning that normally there should be no more than .35 short-term psychiatric beds for each 1,000 persons. Ms. Stamm was instructed to develop rules to assess the need for inpatient psychiatric services. As finally adopted, short-term care is defined in Rule 10-5.11(25) as care not exceeding three months and averaging a length of stay of 30 days or less for adults and 60 days or less for children and adolescents, and long-term care is defined in Rule 10-5.11(26) as care averaging a length of stay of 90 days. Neither rule defines the term "intermediate care." The documents contained in HRS Composite Exhibit IX and reviewed by Ms. Stamm are a representative sample of the literature available in the field and the level of knowledge among health planners as of the date of the promulgation of the subject rules. The documents are a reasonable cross-section of the literature available in the area of psychiatric bed-need assessment. In terms of the literature that was available at the time of the rule adoption in the area of psychiatric bed-need assessment, there is nothing missing from these documents which would have been important to a health planner in developing a psychiatric bed-need methodology. There is discussion in those documents of all the basic methodologies for determining psychiatric bed need. After reviewing all of the available materials, the HRS established a range of from .35 to .37 beds per 1,000 population and from that point made a policy decision to establish a figure of .35 to use in the bed-need formula. In promulgating the subject rules HRS invited and received comment from a broad cross-section of the public, with particular emphasis on those persons and organizations with special knowledge and interest in the provision of mental health services and the determination of psychiatric bed need. HRS conducted a workshop to which it invited a broad cross-section of individuals and organizations with particular knowledge about psychiatric bed need, including representatives of the Florida Hospital Association, Florida Psychiatric Association, Florida Council for Community Mental Health, Florida State Association of District Mental Health Boards, Florida League of Hospitals, Florida Association of Voluntary Hospitals, and the Florida Alcohol and Drug Abuse Association. The comments and results of the workshop were considered by Ms. Stamm and HRS in the promulgation of the subject rules. In response to several requests, HRS conducted a public hearing in accordance with Section 120.54(3), Florida Statutes, to receive comments from interested persons on the subject rules. More than fifteen (15) people representing various hospitals and organizations concerned with psychiatric services entered appearances and made comments at the public hearing. In addition to the oral comment presented at the public hearing, various persons and organizations submitted numerous written comments expressing their opinion with regard to the proposed rules. The comments, both oral and written, were all considered by Ms. Stamm and HRS prior to the promulgation of the subject rules. The process engaged in by HRS, primarily through Ms. Stamm, in the development of the subject rules was extensive and reasonably calculated to invite substantive public comment and to procure the knowledge on the part of HRS necessary to write workable and rational rules concerning psychiatric bed need. The knowledge acquired by HRS through this process with regard to the assessment of psychiatric bed-need methodologies was reasonably sufficient to allow it to knowledgeably draft and promulgate the subject rules. Consideration of this substantive public comment led to several changes in the subject rules as originally drafted. As originally promulgated, Rules 10-5.11(25) and (26) were challenged pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, in various petitions filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. In settling these proposed rule challenges, HRS modified the rules to provide for even greater flexibility in their application. HRS Composite Exhibits I through XII constitute all written matters considered or produced by HRS in the rule adoption process with regard to the subject rules. All of those documents and papers have been maintained in the records of HRS since the promulgation of the subject rules. The statutory criteria for reviewing CON applications are set out in Sections 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes. Rule 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the rule criteria against which CON applications are evaluated. Subsections (1) through (12) and (25) of Rule 10-5.11 are the rule criteria against which applications for CONs for short-term hospital inpatient psychiatric services are to be evaluated. Subsections (1) through and (26) of Rule 10-5.11 are rule criteria against which applications for CONs for long-term psychiatric services are to be evaluated. Rule 10-5.11(25) sets forth certain criteria specifically for the evaluation of CON applications for short term hospital inpatient psychiatric services. Short-term services are in part defined as services averaging a length of stay of thirty (30) days or less for adults and a stay of sixty (60) days or less for children and adolescents under eighteen (18) years. Rule 10- 5.11(25) in its adopted form provides in relevant part as follows: Short Term Hospital Inpatient Psychiatric Services. Short term hospital inpatient psychiatric services means a category of services which provides a 24-hour a day therapeutic milieu for persons suffering from mental health problems which are so severe and acute that they need intensive, full-time care. Acute psychiatric inpatient care is defined as a service not exceeding three months and averaging a length of stay of 30 days or less for adults and a stay of 60 days or less for children and adolescents under 18 years. Short term hospital inpatient psychiatric services may be provided in specifically designated beds in a hospital holding a general license, or in a facility holding a specialty hospital license. Applications for proposed short term hospital inpatient psychiatric services will be reviewed according to relevant statutory and rule criteria. A favorable need determination for proposed general acute care psychiatric inpatient services will not normally be given to an applicant unless a bed need exists according to paragraph (25)(d) of this rule. A favorable Certificate of Need determination may be made when the criteria, other than as specified in (25)(d), as provided for in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, and paragraph (25)(e) of this rule, demonstrate need. Bed allocations for acute care short term general psychiatric services shall be based on the following standards: A minimum of .15 beds per 1,000 population should be located in hospitals holding a general license to ensure access to needed services for persons with multiple health problems. These beds shall be designated as short term inpatient hospital psychiatric beds. .20 short term inpatient hospital beds per 1,000 population may be located in specialty hospitals, or hospitals holding a general license. The distribution of these beds shall be based on local need, cost effectiveness, and quality of care considerations. The short term inpatient psychiatric bed need for a Department service district five years into the future shall be calculated by subtracting the number of existing and approved beds from the number of beds calculated for year x based on a bed need ratio of .35 beds per 1,000 population projected for year and based on latest mid-range projections published by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida. These beds are allocated in addition to the total number of general and acute care hospital beds allocated to each Department District established in Rule 10-5.11(23). Occupancy Standards. New facilities must be able to project an average 70 percent occupancy rate for adult psychiatric beds and 60 percent for children and adolescent beds in the second year of operation, and must be able to project an average 80 percent occupancy rate for adult beds and 70 percent for children and adolescent short term psychiatric inpatient hospital beds for the third year of operation. No additional short term inpatient hospital adult psychiatric beds shall normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy rate for all existing adult short term inpatient psychiatric beds in a service district is at or exceeds 75 percent for the preceding 12 month period. No additional beds for adolescents and children under 18 years of age shall normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy rate for all existing adolescent and children short term hospital inpatient psychiatric beds in the Department district is at or exceeds 70 percent for the preceding 12 2 month period. Hospitals seeking additional short term inpatient psychiatric beds must show evidence that the occupancy standard defined in paragraph six is met and that the number of designated short term psychiatric beds have had an occupancy rate of 75 percent or greater for the preceding year. Unit size. In order to assure specialized staff and services at a reasonable cost, short term inpatient psychiatric hospital based services should have at least 15 designated beds. Applicants proposing to build a new but separate psychiatric acute care facility and intending to apply for a specialty hospital license should have a minimum of 50 beds. Other standards and criteria to be considered in determining approval of a Certificate of Need application for short term hospital inpatient psychiatric beds are as follows: . . . . 7. Access standard. Short term inpatient hospital psychiatric services should be available within a maximum travel time of 45 minutes under average travel conditions for at least 90 percent of the service area's population. There are three basic types of methodologies generally accepted in the field of health planning as valid for determining the need for psychiatric hospital beds. The first type is a need-based methodology which evaluates the need for services. The second is a demand or utilization-based method, which utilizes current or projected utilization statistics for a particular service. The third is a fixed-ratio method which involves the use of a ratio, or rate, of service to population to determine projected need for that service in the future. All three of these methodologies are generally accepted and utilized by health planners throughout the United States. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, but all are valid. The fixed ratio methodology is that which HRS has employed in Rule 10 5.11(25). The ratio of .35 beds per thousand population is a reasonable ratio with a rational basis in fact. It is not arbitrary and capricious as a measure of short-term psychiatric bed need. The National Institute of Mental Health developed draft guidelines in the late 197Os suggesting a range of .15 beds to .40 beds per thousand population as an appropriate fixed-bed ratio program for psychiatric short-term acute-care programs. At least four other states presently or in the past have utilized a fixed bed-need ratio in planning for health care needs. They are Massachusetts, Indiana, Michigan and Georgia. Some of those states used fixed-bed ratios less than .35 per thousand. Ms. Stamm, in developing this rule methodology for HRS, considered and balanced the different approaches relating to the establishment of need. One of her concerns on behalf of HRS, in developing the methodology was to strike a proper balance between need and demand since not everyone who needs psychiatric care will choose to seek that care or can afford to seek that care. In 1982, during the time of the rule adoption process, the ratio of existing short-term psychiatric beds per thousand population in Florida was .29 per thousand. Ms. Stamm selected .35 per thousand, in part, to allow for growth in the number of psychiatric beds for reasons other than just population growth. The current rate of existing licensed short-term psychiatric beds in Florida in 1985 is .28 beds per thousand. However, the ratio for currently existing short-term psychiatric beds, plus CON approved beds not yet licensed in 1985, is .39 beds per thousand. The fact that the existing and approved inventory of psychiatric beds is greater than the .35 ratio specified in the rule demonstrates that HRS has applied Rule 10-5.11(25) in a flexible manner as envisioned by the "not normally" language in the rule. A theoretically ideal way to determine psychiatric bed need would be for HRS to go into each community and conduct epidemiological surveys to identify the people who actually need mental health care. While such a survey, properly conducted, might produce momentarily reliable date, it is not a realistic method for statewide planning purposes because of several problems attendant to such a methodology. Such a survey would be very expensive and very time-consuming and is not practical for use on a statewide basis in a state the size of Florida. Because of the time-consuming nature of such a methodology, if applied on a statewide basis, some of the data would be stale before all of the data was gathered. Further, the rapidly changing population in Florida would require that such a survey be continually updated. The allocation of short-term beds between general and specialty hospitals set forth in subsections (d)1 and 2 of Rule 10-5.11(25) has a rational basis in fact and is not arbitrary. There are many patients who simultaneously need medical as well as psychiatric care. To have those patients located in a specialty hospital, away from a general hospital, would be inappropriate. There are also patients who have acute episodes of psychiatric illness and who need to be treated very rapidly. Because there are many more general hospitals than there are freestanding psychiatric specialty hospitals, it is appropriate to ensure that psychiatric beds are available to general hospitals to fill the particular episodic acute needs. Further, there are many patients in Florida who can afford health care only through Medicaid. Because Medicaid does not provide funding of mental health inpatient services in psychiatric specialty hospitals, it is appropriate to include in the methodology an incentive for the location of some psychiatric beds in general hospitals where psychiatric services can be funded by Medicaid. The specific allocation of the .35 per thousand bed need ratio set forth in Rule 10-5.11(25)(d)(1) and (2) is that .15 beds per thousand "should" be associated with general hospitals and .20 beds per thousand "may" be associated with specialty hospitals. This allocation was designed to be flexible so that, in any given circumstance, an allocation other than the .15 and .20 guideline could be applied. The occupancy rate standards set forth in Rule 10 5.11(25) specify that normally, additional beds should not be approved unless the average occupancy of all existing beds in a service district exceeds 75 percent for adults and 70 percent for children and adolescents. The occupancy rate standards set forth in Rule 10- 5.11(25) were not arrived at in an arbitrary fashion and are reasonable in themselves. The occupancy rates are designed to ensure that a reasonable number of beds in each facility are filled. Hospitals with a substantial number of empty beds are not cost effective. Therefore, it is reasonable to project occupancy rates in the range of those projected in the subject rule. Indeed, the occupancy rates in the rule are liberal in terms of minimum occupancy levels, compared with those in the past and those recommended by others in the industry. With regard to the travel access standard in the rule, the Task Force for Institutional Care recommended a 60 minute travel standard for 90 percent of the population in the district. The 45 minute standard is reasonable. The rule does not exclude from within the travel standard area other facilities providing the same service. At the time of the final hearing, there were sixty five (65) existing hospital facilities in Florida which had psychiatric bed services. Of those sixty-five (65) facilities, sixty-one (61), or 93 percent, had more than fifteen (15) psychiatric beds, and fifty-five (55), or 84 percent, had more than twenty (20) psychiatric beds. In the exceptional event that the average occupancy rate for a particular district did not accurately reflect the availability of beds, the language of Rule 10-5.11(25)(d)5, which says that no additional beds shall "normally" be approved unless the occupancy rates are met is sufficiently flexible to account for the exceptionality. The methodology set forth in Rule 10-5.11(25) is designed to identify and express a need for short-term psychiatric inpatient beds for the overall population of Florida. The rule was intended to be sufficiently flexible that, when balanced with the other criteria set forth in Rule 10-5.11(1) through (12), it would allow substantive input from the district and community levels with regard to the need for beds by subpopulation groups such as child, adolescent, adult, and geriatric. The "national guidelines" referred to by Ms. Stamm were proposed hut never adopted. They recommended fixed bed ratios between .15/1000 and .40/1000. The guidelines were based on a 1978 survey by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), which indicated that .15/1000 was the 25th percentile and .40/1000 was the 75th percentile of 1978 existing short-term psychiatric beds nationwide. The NIMH report stated that selection of an appropriate ratio for a particular state depended on the development of the state's mental health system and recognized that special consideration was necessary for traditionally underserved groups such as children, adolescents, and geriatrics. In the context of inpatient psychiatric care, there has been a trend over the last twenty years, and more particularly over the last five years, toward the development of specialty treatment programs, separately planned for children, adolescents, adults, and geriatrics. In recent years in Florida there has also been a trend toward the provision of alternatives to inpatient psychiatric services in facilities such as residential care. In 1982, Ms. Stamm considered evidence that children, adolescents, and geriatrics were not being adequately served by Florida's mental health facilities. Nevertheless, she did not plan for these subgroups in the rule because in her judgment decisions about allocation of services to subpopulation groups were best made at the district level by the local health councils.
