HHS Appellate Decision on Texas Health and Human Services Commission

8/8/2019 HHS Appellate Decision on Texas Health and Human Services Commission

1/34

Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD

Appellate Division SUBJECT: Texas Heal th and Human DATE: Apr i l 1, 2009

Services CommissionDocket Nos. A-07-32Decis ion No. 2237DECISION

The Texas Heal th and Human Serv ices Commission (Texas o r HHSC)appealed a dete rmina t ion by the Centers fo r Medicare & MedicaidServices (CMS) disa l lowing $1,290,047 in f edera l f inanc ia lpar t i c i pa t i on (FFP) t h a t Texas cla imed as "medical as s i s tance"under th e Medicaid program from September 1, 1997 through August31, 2000. "Med ical ass is tance" i s def ined genera l ly fo r Medicaidpurposes to exclude se rv ices to ind iv idua l s who are res iden t s ofi n s t i t u t ions fo r mental di sease s (IMDs) and a re under th e age of65, but the s t a t u t e provides an except ion fo r " inpa t i en tp sy c h i a t r i c hosp i t a l se rv ices to ind iv idua l s under age 21." CMSdetermined t h a t Texas was sUbmitt ing FFP cla ims fo r medicalse rv ices , provided to IMD res iden t s under th e age of 21, t h a t d idno t qua l i fy for the except ion because th e se rv ices were renderedby providers outs ide of IMDs in which th e ch i ld ren res ided .Texas r a i s e s severa l l e g a l cha l l enges to CMS's pos i t ion t h a t FFPi s ava i l ab le under Medicaid only fo r s e rv ices provided in and bya f a c i l i t y t ha t qua l i f i e s to provide " inpa t i en t psych ia t r i cse rv ices to ind iv idua l s under th e age of 21." Texas recognizes ,however, t h a t th e Board has previous ly re j ec ted s imi la rarguments . Further , ,Texas admits t ha t some of its cla ims are fo rse rv ices t h a t it cannot show were provided as p a r t of th ei n p a t i e n t psych ia t r i c f a c i l i t y se rv ices th e ch i ld ren werer ece iv ing . With i t s i n i t i a l br i e f , however, Texas presentedevidence , based on a sample of the cla ims a t i s sue , which it saysshows t h a t some of the claimed profes s iona l s e rv ices werei npa t i e n t psych ia t r i c se rv ices provided by th e IMDs and weret he re fo re al lowable . In response , CMS quest ioned whether t h i sevidence was s u f f i c i e n t and also whether reimbursement fo r suchclaims would dup l ica te payments made to the IMDs, arguing t h a tthe per diem r a t e fo r th e IMD se rv ices was an a l l - i nc l us i ve r a t e .For the reasons s t a t e d below, we r e j e c t the genera l l e g a lcha l lenges t h a t Texas r a i s e s to CMS's pos i t ion regarding th e IMD


2/34

2 exc lus ion . Thus, we uphold th e disa l lowance of FFP fo r s e rv icesfo r which Texas concedes it has no documentat ion t o e s t a b l i s ht h a t they were provided a t th e IMDs in which the ch i ld renres ided . 1 With r espec t to th e remaining sample claims, weconclude t h a t th e evidence Texas presented shows t ha t a l l butnine of the sample cla ims were fo r eva lua t ion and management,p sy c h i a t r i c , o r c l i n i c a l psychologis t serv ices provided on ani npa t i e n t b a s i s in th e IMDs in which th e ch i ld ren res ided . Thef a c t t h a t the cla ims were submit ted by the profes s iona l s , r a the rthan the IMDs, does no t mean th e IMDs could not a l so reasonab lybe considered to have provided the s e rv ices under th e Medicaidregu la t ions . Texas was permi t ted , under the app i icab le , approvedSta t e plan provis ion and under a waiver t ha t CMS approved, to payfo r profes s iona l s e rv ices provided as p a r t of t he se i n p a t i e n tp sy c h i a t r i c h o sp i t a l se rv ices s epara te ly from th e per diem r a t epa id to th e h o sp i t a l . Nothing in th e Medicaid r egu la t ions o r CMSguidance prec luded such payment being made d i rec t l y to theprofess iona l s . Texas also showed t ha t , contrary to what CMSasse r t ed , the per diem r a t e s paid to th e IMDs were not a l l -i nc lus ive r a t e s t ha t covered the cos t of the profes s iona lse rv ices . CMS has provided no ev iden t ia ry suppor t fo r itsargument t h a t Texas made dup l ica te payments for the se rv ices .Accordingly, we uphold th e disa l lowance i n pa r t and reve rse it inp a r t , in an amount to be determined, cons i s ten t with our dec i s ionbelow.Legal BackgroundTi t l e XIX o f the Act es tab l i shes th e Medicaid program, in whichthe f edera l government and the s t a t e s j o i n t l y share in the cos to f providing hea l th care to low-income persons and f ami l ies . 2Each s t a t e ope ra t e s i t s own Medicaidprogram in accordance withbroad f edera l requirements and the terms of i t s Medicaid s t a t ep lan .

1 Texas es t imated the amount re la ted to these claims to be$722,248.79 . As we di scuss below, however, th e amounts r e l a t e dto a l lowable and unal lowable c la ims must be r eca lcu la ted pursuan tto our dec i s ion .

2 The cur ren t ve rs ion of the Soc ia l Secur i ty Act can befound a t www.ssa.gov!OPHome!ssact!comp-ssa.htm . Each sec t ion o fthe Act on t ha t websi te conta ins a re fe rence to the correspondingUnited St a t e s Code chapte r and sec t ion . Also, a c ross re fe rencet a b l e fo r th e Act and th e United Sta tes Code can be found a t 42U.S.C.A. Ch. 7, Disp Table .
http:///reader/full/722,248.79http://www.ssa.gov%21ophome%21ssact%21comp-ssa.htm/http:///reader/full/722,248.79http://www.ssa.gov%21ophome%21ssact%21comp-ssa.htm/


3/34

3 Sect ion 1903(a) (1) o f th e Act makes FFP ava i lab le on a q u a r t e r l yb a s i s (a t a r a t e ca l l ed th e \ \Federal medica l as s i s t an cepercentage") fo r amounts expended \\as medica l as s i s t an ce underth e Sta te plan .... " The term \\medical as s i s tance" i s def inedin sec t ion 1905(a) o f th e Act . That sec t ion begins by de f in ingth e term to mean payments fo r \\the fo l lowing care and se rv ice s"if they meet ce r ta in condi t ions and are provided to spec i f i ede l i g i b l e ind iv idua l s , and the.n l i s t s va r ious ca tegor ies o fse rv ices t h a t e i t h e r must o r may be covered under a Sta teMedicaid plan . Some o f t he se rv ice ca tegor ies fo r i n p a t i e n ts e r v i ce s inc lude the paren the t i ca l \ \ (o ther than se rv ices in ani n s t i t u t i o n fo r menta l diseases) .,,3 Afte r t he list o f s e r v i ce s ,th e de f in i t i on o f \\medical ass i s tanc e" conta ins the fol lowinglanguage:

[Elxcept as otherwise provided in paragraph (16), suchterm does not i nc lude -

* * *(B) any such payments with re spec t to care or s e rv icesfo r any i nd iv idua l who has not a t t a ined 65 y ea r s o f ageand who i s a pa t i e n t i n an i n s t i t u t i o n fo r mentald iseases .

(Emphasis added.)Paragraph (16) i den t i f i e s (as one o f th e ca tegor ies o f se rv icefo r which payment qua l i f i e s as \\medical ass i s t ance" ) \ \ inpa t ientp sy c h i a t r i c h o sp i t a l se rv ices fo r i nd iv idua l s under age 21, asdef ined in subsec t ion (h) . "Subsec t ion (h ) (1) o f sec t ion 1905 s t a t e s :

For purposes o f paragraph (16) of subsec t ion (a ) , th eterm \ \ inpat ient p s y ch i a t r i c h o s p i t a l s e rv ices fo rind iv idua l s under age 21" inc ludes on ly-

(A) i npa t i en t se rv ices which a re provided in ani n s t i t u t i o n (or d i s t i n c t p a r t the reof) which i s apsych ia t r i c h o s p i t a l . . . o r in ano ther i n p a t i e n ts e t t i ng tha t the Secre ta ry has spec i f i ed in

3 The term \ \ ins t i tu t ion fo r mental diseases" i s def ined insubsec t ion 1905(i ) o f th e Act to mean \\a hosp i t a l , nurs ingf a c i l i t y , o r o th e r i n s t i t u t i o n o f more than 16 beds , t h a t i sp r imar i l y engaged in providing diagnos is , t rea tment , o r ca re o fpersons wi th menta l di sease s , inc lud ing medica l a t t e n t ion ,nurs ing care , and r e l a t e d se rv ices . "


4/34


5/34

5 t he re and rece ive t rea tment o r se rv ices provided the re t h a t a reappropr ia te t o h i s requirements ." 42 C.F.R. 435.1009.Sec t ion 440.160 de f ines " [ i ]npa t i en t psych ia t r i c se rv ices fo rind iv idua l s under age 21" to mean se rv ices t h a t

(a) Are provided under th e d i r e c t i o n of a phys ic ian;(b ) Are provided by -(1) A psych ia t r i c hosp i ta l o r an i npa t i en t psych ia t r i cprogram in a hosp i t a l , accred i ted by th e Jo i n tCommission on Accred i t a t ion o f Heal thcare Organiza t ions ,

o r (2) A psych ia t r i c f a c i l i t y which i s accred i ted by th eJo i n t Commission on Accredi ta t ion of Heal thcareOrgan iza t ions , th e Council on Accred i t a t ion ofRehab i l i t a t ion F a c i l i t i e s , o r by any o th e r accred i t ingorganizat ion , with comparable s tandards , t ha t i srecognized by the S t a ~ e . (c) Meet th e requirements in 441.151 o f t h i ssubchap ter .

(Emphasis added.) Sect ion 441.151 conta ins genera l requirementsfo r i npa t i e n t psych ia t r i c se rv ices fo r ind iv idua l s under age 21.Other provis ions in subpar t D of pa r t 441 of 42 C.F.R. exp la ino ther requirements from sec t ion 1905(h) of the Act ."Active t rea tment" means implementation of an ind iv idua l plan o fcare , meet ing spec i f i ed requirements . 42 C.F.R. 441.154. Thep lan must be "based on a diagnos t ic eva lua t ion t ha t inc ludesexaminat ion of the medical , psycho log ica l , so c i a l , behaviora l anddevelopmental aspec t s of th e r ec i p i en t ' s s i t ua t ion . " 42 C.F.R. 441.155. The plan must be "developed by an i n t e rd i s c ip l ina ryteam of phys ic i ans and o ther personne l who are employed by, o rprovide se rv ices t o pa t i e n t s in , th e f a c i l i t y . " 42 C.F.R. 441.156 (emphasis added) . The team must inc lude , as a minimum,a Board-e l ig ib le o r Board-cer t i f i ed ps yc h ia t r i s t ; a c l i n i c a lpsycho log i s t who has a doc to ra l degree and a phys ic ian l i censedt o p r a c t i c e medicine o r osteopathy; o r a l icensed phys ic ian withspec ia l i zed t r a in ing and exper ience in the d iagnos is andt r ea tment o f mental d iseases , and a psychologis t who has amaste r ' s degree in c l i n i c a l psychology o r has been c e r t i f i e d byth e s t a t e o r by the s t a t e psycho log ica l as soc ia t ion . Id .Case BackgroundThe Office o f the Inspec to r Genera l (OIG) of the f edera lDepartment of Heal th and Human Services conducted an audi t todetermine whether Texas had con t ro l s in place to prevent it from


6/34

6 claiming FFP under Medicaid fo r "medical se rv ices , excepti npa t i e n t psych ia t r i c se rv ices , provided to [IMD] res iden t s underth e age of 21." TX Ex. 1, Execut ive Sununary. The aud i to r s foundt h a t the Medicaid Management Information System opera ted by ~ h e Nat iona l Her i t age Insurance Company (which was the Texasadmin is t r a t ive con t rac to r a t the t ime) did not have e d i t s o rmechanisms " to d e t e c t and preven t FFP from being cla imed fo r IMDr e s i d e n t s under th e age of 21." Id .The aud i to rs examined cla ims fo r s e rv ices during th e pe r iodSeptember 1, 1997 through August 31, 2000. The aud i to r s focusedon 27 pr iva t e and 10 State-operated psych ia t r i c h o sp i t a l s ,ob ta in ing l i s t s of the Medica id-e l ig ib le res iden t s under the ageo f 21 admit ted to th e hosp i t a l s during th e au d i t pe r iod . Theaud i to rs "used computer progranuning to match the r e s ide n t s ' IMDadmission and discharge da tes to the Medicaid payments toide n t i f y payments fo r s e rv ices t ha t were provided during th e t imethe ind iv idua l was a r e s id en t of the IMD, and thus unal lowablefo r FFP." Id . a t 2. The au d i t r epor t s t a t e s : "Any cla ims fo ri npa t i e n t psych ia t r i c se rv ices were then removed, as they a rea l lowable fo r IMD res iden t s under the age of 21." Id . Theaud i to rs found t ha t Texas had improper ly cla imed $1,290,047 inFFP.Based on the aud i t repor t , CMS disal lowed $1,290,047 in FFP fo rpayments t h a t CMS descr ibed as cla ims fo r "ou tpa t ien t h o sp i t a l ,phys ic i an , l abora to ry , pharmacy, and t ranspor t a t ion se rv icesrendered by prov ide rs outs ide of th e psych ia t r i c f a c i l i t y . " TXEx. 2, a t 1 . CMS based th e disa l lowance on i t s reading of theIMD exc lus ion and its except ion, and the implementingr e gu la t i ons . , CMS reads those prov i s ions to mean t ha t FFP i sava i l ab le fo r s e rv ices provided to a Medicaid r e c ip i e n t under theage of 21 who r es ides in an IMD (and has not been uncondi t ional lyre leased) only if those se rv ices qua l i fy as " inpa t i en tp sy c h i a t r i c f a c i l i t y se rv ices fo r ind iv idua l s under the age of21" as def ined in sec t ion 440.160. In o ther words, CMS reads th es t a tu t e and r egu la t ions to mean t ha t FFP i s not ava i l ab le fo rse rv ices to ind iv idua l s under th e age of 21 who res ide in IMDsun les s the s e rv ices a re provided in and by a qua l i fy ing IMD.Texas appealed the CMS dete rmina t ion . Afte r a s t ay in which thep a r t i e s t r i e d unsuccessful ly to resolve the case , th e Board s e t abr i e f ing schedule . CMS's br i e f ra i sed fo r the f i r s t t ime ani s sue regarding whether the IMDs received an "a l l - i n c l u s i v e "re imbursement r a t e . Texas objec ted to t h i s in its r ep ly b r i e f .The Board then s e t procedures to ensure t h a t Texas had anadequate oppor tun i ty to supplement i t s r ep ly and evidence toaddress th e new i s sue , and th e par t i e s j o i n t l y requested fu r t h e r


7/34

7

ex tens ions o f t ime . Texas then presented fu r the r evidence andargument to show t ha t its approved Sta te plan and f edera l andSt a t e r egu la t ions permi t ted it to separa te ly re imbursep r o f e s s io n a l s fo r s e rv ices provided as pa r t of i n p a t i e n tp sy c h i a t r i c se rv ices , and t ha t th e cos t s of those se rv ices werenot inc luded in th e IMDs' p e r diem r a t e s . eMS f i l ed a su r rep lyand Texas f i l ed a response .Analys isBelow, we f i r s t address th e arguments Texas made about th e l e g a lpremises fo r th e disa l lowance . We then discuss the evidenceTexas submit ted to show t ha t some o f the c la ims disa l lowed werenot , a s eMS a s s e r t s , fo r se rv ices provided ou t s ide o f t he IMDs inwhich the ch i ld ren res ided , but in s tead were fo r s e rv ices t h a ta re a l lowable i npa t i en t p sych ia t r i c hosp i ta l s e rv ices . F ina l ly ,we address eMS's argument t ha t the IMDs were pa id an a l l -i n c lu s iv e r a t e .I . eMS i s correct regarding the scope o f the general IMD

exc lus ion and i t s exception.A. This Board has prev ious ly upheld eMS's reading basedon the p la in language o f i t he Medicaid s ta tu t e and

o ther f ac tor s .Previous Board dec i s ions have upheld eMS's pos i t ion on th e scopeo f FFP ava i l ab le fo r s e rv ices to ch i ld ren in IMDs. New YorkSt a t e Dept . of Heal th , DAB No. 2066 (2007); Virg in ia Dept. ofMedical Assis tance DAB No. 2222 (2008) . .The Board ' s majorreasons fo r upholding eMS's pos i t ion in those cases were: eMS's reading of the Act i s based on th e p la in wordingof the IMD exc lus ion and of the except ion fo r " i n p a t i e n tpsych ia t r i c h o s p i t a l s e rv ices fo r ind iv idua l s under age21." While sec t ion 1905(a) of th e Act de f ine s the term"medica l as s i s tance" as meaning payment fo r th e l i s t e dcovered se rv ices , it goes on to say t ha t the term does

not inc lude "any such payments" fo r any ind iv idua l underage 65 who i s a pa t i e n t i n an IMD "except as o therwiseprovided in paragraph (16) ." That paragraph in t u rnprovides fo r payment only fo r " inpa t i en t p sych ia t r i chosp i t a l se rv ices fo r ind iv idua l s under age 21" asdef ined in subsec t ion 1905(h) of the Act .


8/34

8

Subsect ion 1905(h) de f ines " inpa t i en t psych ia t r i chosp i t a l se rv ices fo r i nd iv idua l s under age 2111 toinc lude "only" c e r t a i n inpa t i en t se rv ices provided in aqua l i fy ing psyc h ia t r i c hosp i ta l (or d i s t i n c t p a r tthe reof) or o ther qua l i fy ing i n p a t i e n t s e t t i n g . Theimplementing r egu la t ions def ine the term to inc lude onlyi n p a t i e n t se rv ices provided by a qual i fy ing h o sp i t a l ,hosp i t a l program, o r f a c i l i t y . Thus, th e Act and th er egu la t ions do i n d i ca t e t ha t th e excep t ion makes FFPava i l ab le only fo r s e rv ices provided in and by th equa l i fy ing IMD.

The s t a t u t e and l eg i s l a t i ve h i s t o ry confirm t h a tCongress in tended to exclude payment fo r a l l s e r v i c e ~ , inc luding medica l se rv ices , provided to ind iv idua l sunder age 65 i n s t i t u t i ona l i z e d in IMDs because th es t a t e s had t r ad i t i ona l l y been respons ib le for suchs e r v i ce s . Nei ther th e s t a t u t e nor its l eg i s l a t i veh i s to ry sugges t tha t , in crea t ing th e excep t ion to t h a texc lus ion , Congress in tended to assume r e s pons ib i l i t yfo r a l l Medicaid se rv ices provided to ch i ld reni n s t i tu t i o n a l i z e d i n qua l i fy ing IMDs, no mat te r whoprovided them. Indeed, th e except ion was narrowlyt a i l o r e d to ensure t h a t the covered i n p a t i e n tpsych ia t r i c se rv ices would promote ac t ive t rea tment in as e t t i n g meeting fede ra l s tandards . The l eg i s l a t i veh i s t o ry o f th e except ion i s cons i s ten t with CMS'sread ing o f the s t a tu to ry language to mean t ha t Congressin tended fo r Medicaid to assume r e s pons ib i l i t y only fo rth e ca tegory of se rv ices defined in subsec t ion 1905(h) .

CMS po l icy i ssuances have fo r over ten years c l e a r ly s e tout CMS's i n t e rp r e t a t i on tha t th e except ion does n otmake FFP ava i lab le fo r non ins t i tu t iona l se rv icesprovided out s ide o f . the qua l i fy ing IMD by o th e rprov ide rs .

While the expec ta t ion i s t h a t an IMD t ha t qua l i f i e s fo rth e except ion w i l l provide care and se rv ices to meet th ec h i l d ' s medica l needs, t ha t does not mean t h a t FFP i sava i l ab le fo r medica l se rv ices provided by o th e rhosp i t a l o r non-hospi ta l providers outs ide o f th e IMD.

Texas acknowledges t ha t th e Board has prev ious ly upheld CMS ont h i s i s sue , and we incorpora te i n to t h i s dec is ion our f u l lana lys i s from our p r i o r dec i s ions . We next turn to th e argumentsTexas made about why we should recons ider our p r i o r ana lys i s andexp la in below why those arguments a re n ot pe rsuas ive .


9/34

9 B. Texas ' re l iance on the l eg i s l a t i ve h i s t o r y o f th e

except ion i s misplaced.Texas submits t h a t th e i n t e n t o f th e 1972 Amendments c r ea t i n g th eexcept ion to th e IMD exc lus ion fo r i nd iv idua l s under th e age o f21 (and in some i n s t ances up to 22 ) "was to c l a r i f y t h a t th es t a t e could provide those ind iv idua l s with psych ia t r i c hosp i t a lse rv ices in add i t ion to , r a t h e r than in l i eu of , the o thermedical se rv ices a l ready provided to t ha t popula t ion ." TX Br. a t8-9 . According to Texas, th e l eg i s l a t i ve h i s t o ry o f th eexcept ion i nd ica tes t ha t Congress in tended to add funding fo ri npa t i e n t care of menta l ly ill ch i ld ren , and no mention was madeo f e l imina t ing benef i t s fo r which these ch i ld ren were a l readye l i g i b l e . TX B r. a t 9-10, c i t i ng and quot ing from H.R. Conf.

92 nd 2ndRep. 1605, Congo Sess . (1972); 118 Congo Rec. 32472,92 nd 2nd32477; S. Rep. No. 1230, Congo Sess . (1972) .

This argument miss ta tes th e s t a tus of ch i ld ren such as those a ti s sue here p r i o r to the 1972 Amendments. Under th e genera l IMDexc lus ion , the s t a tus o f chi ldren i n s t i t u t i ona l i z e d in an IMDsuch a s a psych ia t r i c h o s p i t a l was t h a t no FFP was ava i l ab leunder Medicaid fo r any se rv ices provided to th e ch i ld ren . "Forthose ch i ld ren , th e genera l IMD exc lus ion had th e e f f e c t o fexcluding from th e term "medical as s i s tance" any payment fo rs e r v i ce s to th e i n s t i t u t i ona l i z e d ch i ld ren , whether they wereprovided i n s ide o r out s ide of th e hosp i t a l .Thus, th e s ta tements in th e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o ry o f th e 1972Amendments do no t suppor t th e pos i t ion taken by Texas , much l e s sove r r ide the p l a i n language of th e s t a t u t e regard ing whats e r v i ce s Congress in tended to cover .

C. CMS's pos i t ion does no t c o n f l i c t with the prov i s ionsof the Ac t re qu i r ing the EPSDT Program.Texas a l so argues , as d id New York, t ha t coverage o f th e se rv icesa t i s sue i s requi red under the Ear ly and Per iodic Screening,Diagnosis , and Treatment (EPSDT) program. The EPSDT program i ses tab l i shed by paragraph 1905(a) (4) (B) o f th e Act , which inc ludesin th e list o f se rv ices in the d e f i n i t i o n of "medical as s i s tance"th e fo l lowing: "Early and Per iodic Screening , Diagnost i c , andTreatment Services (as def ined in subsec t ion ( r) fo r ind iv idua l swho a re e l i g i b l e under the p lan and are. under th e age o f 21) . "Texas argues t h a t th e "CMS i n t e rp r e t a t i on tha t the Medicaid Actdoes not cover medica l se rv ices provided out s ide the IMD duringth e t ime t he ind iv idua l i s a r e s id en t o f th e IMD i s in d i r e c tc o n f l i c t with th e i n t e n t o f th e EPSDT requirements o f th e f edera l


10/34

10 Medicaid s t a t u t e , pa r t i c u l a r ly th e 1989 amendments t o t h a ts t a t u t e . " TX B r. a t 16. Texas po in t s out t ha t , in 1989,Congress "expanded EPSDT benef i t s to r equ i re s t a t e s pa r t i c ipa t ingin th e Medicaid program to provide coverage fo r a l l Medicaidsc reening, d iagnos t ic , and t rea tment se rv ices to ind iv idua l sunder th e age o f 21, whether o r not those se rv ices a re covereds e r v i ce s under th e s t a t e Medicaid program fo r ad u l tbe ne f i c i a r ie s . " I d . , c i t i ng Omnibus Reconci l ia t ion Act o f 1989,Pub. L. No . 101-239, 6403. Spec i f i ca l ly , Congress amendedsubsec t ion 1905(r} (5) o f th e Act to def ine EPSDT se rv ices toinc lude spec i f i ed screen ing se rv ices , v i s ion se rv ices , den ta lse rv ices , hear ing se rv ices , and "other necessary h ea l t h ca re ,d iagnos t ic s e rv ices , t rea tment , and othe r measures descr ibed insec t ion 1905(a) to co r r ec t o r amel io ra te defec t s and phys ica l andmental i l l nes ses and condi t ions discovered by the screen ingse rv ices , whether o r not such se rv ices a re covered under th eS t a t e p lan ." Act , 1905 (r) (5) (emphasis added) . According toTexas, th e l a s t c lause in t h i s amended sec t ion requ i res s t a t e s tocover a l l medica l ly necessary se rv ices fo r any condi t ion " i f th ese rv ice i s within the sec t ion 1905(a) list o f se rv ices t h a t maybe funded under t he fede ra l Medicaid s t a t u t e . " TX B r. a t 17,

(9 thc i t i ng Katie A. v . Los Angeles County, 481 F.3d 1150, 1154Cir . 2007) and cases c i ted t h e r e in .Texas fu r t h e r argues t h a t CMS's i n t e rp r e t a t i on " t h a t psych ia t r i co r medical care provided dur ing th e t ime a ch i ld under th e age o f21 i s a res iden t in an IMD i s not a covered se rv ice fo r which th es t a t e i s e n t i t l e d to FFP i s contrary ' to th e i n t e n t o f Congress"in enac t ing p rov i s ions t h a t " requ i re the s t a t e to prov idei npa t i e n t psych ia t r i c hosp i ta l s e rv ices in add i t ion to any o th e rse rv ices l i s t e d in [sec t ion 1905(a) when medical ly necessary ."TX B r. a t 20. Texas a l so argues t ha t Congress c l e a r ly consideredbo th mental h ea l t h and medica l care to be components o f its 1989expansion o f EPSDT b e n e f i t s . I d . , c i t i ng 135 Congo Rec. S 6900(da i ly ed. June 19, 1.989) ("This b i l l r equ i res s t a t e s t o o f f e rEPSDT se rv ices whenever docto rs suspec t medica l o r mental hea l thproblems. It a l so r equ i res prompt t rea tment once a cond i t ion hasbeen diagnosed. ) .There a re two fundamenta l f laws with the l ega l arguments Texasmakes. F i r s t , Texas does not accura te ly s t a t e th e CMS pos i t ion .CMS does no t t ake the pos i t ion t ha t p s y ch i a t r i c o r medica l ca reprovided while a ch i ld i s an IMD r es iden t i s never a coveredse rv ice . Ins t ead , CMS's p o s i t i o n i s t ha t FFP i s ava i l ab le onlywhen such care and se rv ices f a l l within th e excep t ion to th e IMDexc lus ion - t h a t i s , only when they are p a r t of i n p a t i e n tp sy c h i a t r i c f a c i l i t y se rv ices fo r ind iv idua l s under age 21 t h a tmeet th e s t a tu to ry and regu la to ry requirements fo r such se rv ices .


11/34

11 Second, T e ~ a s misreads t he r e fe rence to sec t ion 1905(a) insec t ion 1905(r) as being a r e fe rence to th e " l i s t " of se rv i ces insec t ion 1905(a) . Ins tead , t he r e fe rence i s to "measures. descr ibed" in sec t ion 1905(a) "whether o r no t such se rv ices a r ecovered under the s t a t e p lan . " Act, 1905 ( r) .We see no c o n f l i c t between CMS's reading of the scope of the IMDexc lus ion and t he p rov i s ion in sUbsect ion ( r ) , r equ i r ing s t a t e sto prov ide se rv ices fo r which the need i s determined by an EPSDTscreen "whether o r no t such se rv ices a r e covered under th e St a t ep lan . " The list of se rv ices in subsect ion 1905(a) inc ludes somese rv ices t h a t a re cons idered mandatory and some t h a t a recons idered op t iona l . Spec i f i ca l ly , a Medicaid Sta t e plan mustinc lude " a t l e a s t t he ca re and se rv ices l i s t e d in paragraphs (1)th rough (5) , (17) and (21) of sec t ion 1905(a)" fo r theca t ego r i ca l l y needy and o the r spec i f i ed se rv ices fo r themedical ly needy ( i f e l i g i b l e under th e s t a t e p l a n ) . Act , 1902(a) (10) ; see 42 C.F.R. 440.210, 440.220, 440.225.Genera l ly , FFP i s ava i l ab le fo r payments fo r se rv ices only ifthey a re expended as "medical ass i s t ance under the St a t e p lan . "Act , 1903(a) (1) . Thus, th e c l ea r purpose of the phrase insubsec t ion (r) i s to provide fo r some EPSDT se rv ices t h a totherwise would no t be covered because they a re op t iona lse rv ices , no t covered in the r e levan t s t a t e p lan . Texas po i n t sto no suppor t in th e l e g i s l a t i v e his to ry o r elsewhere fo ri n t e r p r e t i ng t h i s language as meaning t h a t a s t a t e must providese rv ices even if f ede ra l pa r t i c ipa t i on i n expendi tures fo r thosese rv ices i s prec luded because th e chi ld i s in an IMD.Kat ie A. and th e r e l a t ed cas es c i t ed by Texas a re no t d i r e c t l y onpo i n t . Moreover, as Texas acknowledges, what those cases sa idwas t ha t " s t a t e s must cover every type of heal th care or se rv icenecessary fo r EPSDT co r rec t ive o r amel iora t ive purposes t ha t i sa l lowable" under sec t ion 1905(a) . Id . Thus, sec t ion 1905(r)t r igge r s a requirement fo r a s t a t e to provide a se rv ice only ifsec t ion 1905(a) a l lows it. As noted above, th e genera l IMDexc lus ion in sec t ion 1905(a) provides t ha t , "except as o therwiseprovided in paragraph (16) ," th e term "medical ass i s t ance" doesnot inc lude "any such payments with r e spec t to care or se rv icesfo r any ind iv idua l who has not a t t a ined 65 years of age and whoi s a pa t i en t " in an IMD. The phrase "any such payments" r e fe r sback to th e payments previous ly def ined as payments cons idered tobe "medica l ass i s t ance" - t h a t i s , payments fo r the l i s t e d careand se rv ices , inc luding EPSDT se rv ices . 4 Nothing in th e c i t ed

4 In New York, we a lso noted t ha t , i n Medicaid St a t e(cont inued. . )


12/34

12 dec i s ions sugges t s t h a t Medicaid must cover se rv ices fo r whichFFP would n ot be al lowable as "medical as s i s tance" under s ec t i o n1905 (a) .Texas a l so seeks to d i s t ingu i sh New York on th e f a c t s , po in t ingto th e Board ' s s t a tements i n t ha t dec is ion t ha t "New York ' sargument assumes t h a t th e serv ices fo r which payment weredisa l lowed were EPSDT se rvices" and t h a t "New York did no t ,however, provide any evidence to suppor t t h i s a s se r t i o n . " TX Br.a t 17, c i t i ng New York a t 50. Texas a s s e r t s t ha t " a l l o f th edisa l lowed cla ims are fo r i nd iv idua l s under the age o f 21 and fo rEPSDT se rv ices . " Id . Texas po in t s out t ha t the 1989 l eg i s l a t i onexpanded th e EPSDT Program to provide fo r in t ' e rper iodic sc reen sand t h a t eMS guidance t r ea t s any encounter with a h ea l t h carep r o f e s s io n a l ac t ing within th e scope o f prac t i ce to be an EPSDTsc reen . Id . a t 18. Texas a l so argues t ha t , in accordance withMedica id requirements , ch i ld ren a re not hosp i ta l i zed without adete rmina t ion by a hea l th care profes s iona l t ha t h o sp i t a l i z a t i o ni s requ i red and t ha t s t a t e s a re requi red by th e EPSDT prov i s ionsto prov ide se rv ices i f , dur ing th e c h i l d ' s hosp i t a l s tay , ahea l th ca re profes s iona l determines t h a t e i t he r psych ia t r i c o rnon-psych ia t r i c medica l care i s needed, and th e se rv ices a rel i s t e d in sec t ion 1905(a) , whether o r not th e s t a t e otherwiseof f e r s t he se se rv ices . Id . a t 19. Texas argues t ha t a l l of thedisa l lowed se rv ices except t ranspor t a t ion se rv ices were providedby hea l th care profes s iona l s ac t ing within th e scope o f p ra c t i c e ,and, thus , the se rv ices were EPSDT se rv ices . Id . a t 20. Withr espec t to th e t ranspor t a t ion se rv ices , Texas argues t ha t eMS'sS t a t e Medicaid Manual r equ i res it to prov ide necessaryt r a n sp o r t a t i o n and t h a t th e OIG aud i t did no t ques t ion th enecess i ty o f th e t ranspor t a t ion cla ims a t i s sue .These arguments have no mer i t . Fi r s t , Texas er roneously assumest h a t , if New York had es tab l i shed th e f ac tua l p red ica te fo r itsargument , it would have preva i led . The Board concluded in t h a t

4( cont inued)Operat ions Le t t e r 91-36, th e eMS Regional Admin is t ra to r fo r theNew York reg ion informed New York, in response to ques t ions abou twhether FFP i s av a i l ab l e fo r s e rv ices to ch i ld ren in IMDs, t h a tth e " fa c t t h a t a need fo r th e se rv ices was determined through anEPSDT sc reen would not provide a bas i s fo r paying fo r s e rv icesfo r which we otherwise could not pay because o f th e IMD exc lus ionand th e only excep t ion to th e exc lus ion i s th e psych under 21be ne f i t . " New York a t 14-15. eMS submit ted t ha t l e t t e r as eMSExhib i t 3 here , bu t does not a s s e r t t h a t Texas had no t ice o f t h a tl e t t e r .


13/34

13 dec i s ion , however, t ha t th e l ega l pred ica te fo r the argument hadno mer i t . New York a t 25-27. Second, Texas d id not e s t a b l i s h asa mat te r o f f a c t t h a t a l l of the se rv ices a t i s sue were EPSDTse rv ices .We recognize t h a t a medical neces s i ty dete rmina t ion must be madebe fore a ch i ld may rece ive i npa t i en t psych ia t r i c f a c i l i t yse rv ices under Medicaid. 42 C.F.R. 441.151(a} (4) . Also, fo r achi ld r es id ing in a qual i fy ing IMD, the IMD had to ensure t h a tthe c h i l d ' s needs were eva lua ted pr io r t o o r sh o r t l y a f t e radmission and p e r i o d ~ c a l l y t he r e a f t e r while th e ch i ld was ar e s i d e n t and to provide se rv ices to meet th e c h i l d ' s needs( inc luding medical needs) , as determined by th e i n t e rd i s c ip l ina ryteam. Thus, Texas would be obl igated to provide those se rv icesunder the EPSDT Program, whether o r not the Texas Sta te Plancovered i npa t i en t psych ia t r i c f a c i l i t y se rv ices fo r ind iv idua l sunder age 21.With r espec t to any cla ims fo r ou tpa t ien t s e rv ices fo r such ach i ld , however, the mere fac t t ha t hea l th care profes s iona l ssubmit ted th e cla ims does not e s t a b l i s h e i t he r t h a t Texas had topay fo r th e se rv ices as a requi red EpSDT per iod ic o r o ther sc reeno r t h a t the s e rv ices were medical ly necessary. Texas has n otexpla ined why th e requi red eva lua t ions and se rv ices to beprovided by th e IMD would not be s u f f i c i e n t to meet th e EPSDTrequi rements while the ch i ld was a res iden t . Moreover, s ince thech i ld ren were r es id ing in th e IMDs a t the t ime the s e rv ices werea l l eged ly provided , separate o u tp a t i en t cla ims fo r s e rv ices suchas t ranspor t a t ion are inheren t ly ques t ionable . In any even t ,Texas d id n ot provide any evidence to suppor t i t s a s se r t i o n t h a tthe ou tpa t i en t se rv ices cons t i tu t ed requi red , per iod ic EPSDTsc reens o r were fo r s e rv ices t ha t had been determined by a sc reento be medica l ly necessary .In sum, Texas ' re l i ance on th e EPSDT requirements i s misplaced.

D. The IMD exc lus ion does no t impermiss ib ly discr iminateagains t ind iv idua ls on th e bas i s o f d i sab i l i t y .

Texas argues t h a t th e "CMS pos i t ion t ha t s t a t e s pa r t i c ipa t ing inth e Medicaid program are requi red to provide EPSDT-eligiblei n d iv id u a l s a l l medica l se rv ices l i s t e d in [sec t ion 1905(a}] ,unless those ind iv idua l s have an emotional dis turbance o r mentali l l n e s s so se r ious t ha t they r equ i re admission to an i n s t i t u t i o nfo r mental d iseases , c o n s t i t u t e s discr iminat ion on th e bas i s o fd i s a b i l i t y and i s incons i s ten t with th e requirements imposed onth e s t a t e s by sec t ion 504 of the Rehab i l i ta t ion Act of 1973, asamended, 29 U.S.C. 794, and the Americans with Disab i l i t i e s Act


14/34

14 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101, e t seq ." TX Br. a t 22 ( i t a l i c s inor i g i na l ) . According to Texas, "CMS's pos i t ion t h a t EPSDTe l i g i b l e s can g e t ou tpa t i en t hea l th care only if they do no t havea mental hea l th problem severe enough to warranti n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n screens out ind iv idua l s with more severemental d i s a b i l i t i e s . " Id . Texas concludes t ha t " [ s ]uch c r i t e r i adeny ind iv idua l s with ser ious mental d i s a b i l i t i e s EqualPro tec t ion of the law in v io l a t i on of th e Due Process Clause o fth e 5 t h Amendment to th e United Sta tes Cons t i tu t ion ." Id .This argument aga in miss ta tes CMS's pos i t ion and th e e f f e c t ofth e genera l IMD exc lus ion . The i s sue here i s not whether th ech i ld ren r ece ive the s e rv ices they need, but whether FFP i sava i l ab le fo r se rv ices provided out s ide th e IMDs in which theyr e s i d e . I f a ch i ld i s i n s t i t u t i ona l i z e d in an IMD, FFP i sava i l ab le only if th e se rv ices the ch i ld rece ives meet thes t a t u t o ry and r egu la to ry requirements to qua l i fy for theexcept ion to the exc lus ion in sec t ion 1905(a) (16). The reasonfo r th e funding d i s t i nc t ion i s t ha t se rv ices in an IMD weret r ad i t i ona l ly the re spons ib i l i ty of th e s t a t e s . Contrary to whatTexas argues , th e d i s t i nc t ion i s not on the bas i s of the sever i tyo f th e mental d isease .S imi la r arguments about th e IMD exc lus ion were re j ec ted by theBoard many yea rs ago, based on th e Supreme Court decis ion inSchweiker v . Wilson, 450 U.S. 221 (1980) . New York Sta te Dept.of Soc ia l Se rv ice s , DAB No. 1577, a t 11 (1996) . In Schweiker,the Supreme Court held t ha t a s t a tu to ry prov i s ion makingSupplemental Secur i ty Income benef i t s unava i lable to IMDr e s i d e n t s who were not rece iv ing Medicaid "made a d i s t i nc t i on n otbetween th e menta l ly ill and a group composed of non-menta l lyill, bu t between res iden t s in publ i c i n s t i t u t i ons receiv ingMedicaid funds and . . . res iden t s in such i n s t i t u t i ons n o tr ece iv ing Medicaid funds." 450 U.S. a t 232. Similar ly , th e IMDexc lus ion does n ot d i s t ingu i sh ind iv idua l s on th e bas i s o f t h e i rmental i l l n e s s (o r i t s se v e r i t y ) , but in s tead p ro h i b i t s FFP ince r t a i n se rv ices provided to ind iv idua l s by reason of t h e i ri n s t i t u t i o n a l s t a tus , age, and the na ture of the se rv ices .I I . The evidence submitted by Texas es tab l i shes that , contraryto what eMS asser t s , some o f the claims at i s sue were forserv i ces provided on an inpat ient bas i s by profe s s iona l s who werepermitted to b i l l for the serv i ces .

A. Texas showed t ha t the fac tual premises on which th edisa l lowance was based were i l l - f o u n d e d .CMS found t h a t th e se rv ices a t i s sue were provided ou ts ide of th e


15/34

15 IMDs in which th e ch i ld ren res ided, by providers ' o ther than th eIMDs. The aud i t r epor t , on which CMS based t h i s f inding, sa idt h a t any cla ims fo r i npa t i en t p s y ch i a t r i c se rv ices were r e m o v e d ~ TX Ex. 1, a t 2. A dec la ra t ion o f one o f th e aud i to r s i nd ica test h a t th e aud i to r s thought t h a t a l l o f th e disal lowed cla ims werefo r ou tpa t i en t se rv ices based th e f a c t t h a t th e cla ims were not submit ted by th e IMDsj th e a u d i t o r s ' unders tanding of what they had rece ivedfrom Texas and its cla ims process ing con t rac to r j and t h e i r understanding t ha t the i n t e rn a l con t ro l number(ICN) fo r each c la im ind ica ted it was fo r s e rv ices

provided on an o u tp a t i en t b a s i s .CMS Ex. 1 (Declara t ion o f Cla i re Huerta) .On appea l , Texas presented evidence and argument to show t h a t th emere f a c t t h a t th e cla ims were not submit ted by th e IMDs d id n o tdef i n i t i ve l y show t ha t th e se rv ices were not p a r t o f th ei npa t i e n t se rv ices provided by the IMDs.With r espec t to who may b i l l fo r Medicaid se rv ices , Texas p o in t sto th e Medicaid r egu la t ion a t 42 C.F.R. 447.10, e n t i t l e d"Proh ib i t ion aga ins t reass ignment o f provider c la ims ." Thatr eg u l a t i o n prov ides :

Ca) Basis and purpose. This sec t ion implementssec t ion 1902(a) (32) o f th e Act which p ro h i b i t s S t a t epayments fo r Medicaid se rv ices to anyone o th e r than aprov ide r o r r e c i p i e n t , except in spec i f i edci rcumstances.

(b ) Def ini t ions. For purposes o f t h i s sec t ion :Faci l i ty means an i n s t i t u t i o n t h a t fu rn i shes hea l th

care se rv ices t o i n p a t i e n t s .* * *

(d) Payment may be made only-(1) To the provider j o r(2) To th e r e c i p i e n t . . . j o r(3) In accordance with paragraphs (e ) , ( f ) , and (g) o f

t h i s sec t ion .* * *

(g) Individual pract i t ioners . Payment may be made to -


16/34


17/34

17 and render appropr ia te se rv ices . " Id . a t 3-5 . CMS concludesfrom t h i s t ha t the provis ion a t sec t ion 441.156 does "notau tho r ize payment fo r se rv ices to non-IMD prov ider s or over r ideth e s t a tu to ry and r egu la to ry r e s t r i c t i o n s which l i m i t t h i sbene f i t t o qu a l i f ied se rv ices provided in and by an IMD." Id . a t5 .CMS i s c o r r e c t t h a t the r egu la t ions ( i f not the s ta tu te ) requi ret h a t ac t ive t rea tment pursuant to a plan of care be providedthe f a c i l i t y as wel l as in the f a c i l i t y . As Texas poin t s out ,however, CMS i s confusing th e i s sue of se rv ices fo r which FFP i sava i l ab le , with th e ques t ion of who may b i l l fo r those s e rv i c e s .There i s no f ind ing or evidence here t h a t the physic ians ,p s y c h i a t r i s t s , or c l in i ca l psychologis t s who submit ted c la ims fo rse rv ices they furn ished on an i npa t i e n t bas i s d id not have th er equ i s i t e qua l i f i ca t i ons and c redent i a l s or t h a t they were notimplementing th e ch i ld ' s plan of ca re . Moreover, while sec t ion441.156 does not spec i f i ca l ly author ize payment to "non-IMDprovide rs , " the reference to non-employees who provide se rv icesin th e f a c i l i t y i nd ica t e s t h a t CMS was aware t h a t qua l i f i edpersonnel might be cons ide red as "providing" se rv ices t h a t a rep a r t of th e ac t ive t rea tment the f a c i l i t y has the r e s pons ib i l i t yto provide to its re s iden t s , even if the profess iona l s a re no tf a c i l i t y employees. While CMS as se r t s t h a t Congress in tended thepayments to be made to the IMD, CMS c i t e s to no suppor t fo r t h i sas s e r t i on and concedes t h a t it has i ssued no pol i cy guidancerequi r ing t h a t a f a c i l i t y b i l l fo r a l l i npa t i e n t se rv ices itprov ides . CMS Surreply a t 10. 6

6 We note t h a t CMS d id recen t ly c l a r i fy t ha t , fo r purposesof ca lcu la t ing a hos p i t a l - s pec i f i c l im i t fo r d isp ropor t iona teshare hos p i t a l payments , cos ts a hospi t a l incurs for p rofess iona lse rv ices may be included in ca lcu la t ing the h o s p i t a l ' suncompensated care cos t s only if the s t a t e plan def ines i npa t i en tor ou t pa t i e n t hos p i t a l se rv ices to inc lude the se rv ices and th ehosp i ta l b i l l s fo r those se rv ices . 73 Fed. Reg. 77,904 (Dec. 19,2008). In so doing, CMS recognized t ha t s t a t e s have th ef l e x i b i l i t y to t r e a t pro fess iona l se rv ices as p a r t of hos p i t a lse rv i ces under Medicaid, even though Medicare reasonable cos tpr inc ip l e s t r e a t only ce r t a in cos t s fo r pro fess iona l s asal lowable fo r r a t e - s e t t i n g purposes. Id . Simi lar ly , CMS hasapparen t ly recognized t h a t s t a t e s have f l e x i b i l i t y to inc ludeprofess iona l se rv ices as pa r t of " inpa t i en t psychia t r i c f a c i l i t yse rv ices for ind iv idua l s under age 21." Texas asse r t ed , and CMSdoes no t deny, t h a t CMS has approved r a t e s fo r t h i s category ofse rv ices t h a t inc lude th e cos t s of pro fess iona l se rv ices .


18/34

18 CMS says t h a t th e pr iva te hosp i t a l s were not proh ib i ted by s t a t eo r f edera l law from b i l l i ng fo r th e p r a c t i t i o n e r s ' se rv ices bu tt h a t Texas has chosen to l e t t he ind iv idua l pra c t i t i one r s b i l ld i rec t l y . ld . a t 9. CMS argues t h a t th e Texas Occupat ions Codeon which Texas r e l i e s does not c l e a r ly l im i t employment o fphys ic i ans to s t a t e h o sp i t a l s . CMS does not d i rec t l y deny th ea s s e r t i on by Texas t ha t sec t ion 447.10(g) s pe c i f i c a l l y a l lows th eind iv idua l pra c t i t i one r s to b i l l d i r e c t ly , b u t desc r ibes t h a tsec t ion as meaning t ha t i nd iv idua l pra c t i t i one r s may rece ivepayment " e i the r through (1 ) th e employer o f th e p r a c t i t i o n e r , if, the prac t i t i one r i s requi red as a condi t ion o f employment t o tu rnover h is fees to th e employer; o r (2 ) th e f a c i l i t y in which th es e r v i ce s i s [s ic] prov ided if th e pra c t i t i one r has a co n t r ac tunder which th e f a c i l i t y submits th e c la im." ld . a t 8.We agree wi th CMS t ha t ne i the r th e Texas Occupat ions Code nors ec t i o n 447.10 proh ib i t s a h o s p i t a l from ever b i l l i n g on beha l fo f a p r a c t i t i o n e r who provides se rv ices in the hosp i t a l as p a r to f its i n p a t i e n t se rv ices . Texas has c l e a r ly overs ta ted itscase . On the o ther hand, th e p l a i n language o f sec t ion 447.10c l e a r ly r e s t r i c t s th e s i t ua t ions in which a prov ide r f a c i l i t y mayb i l l fo r ind iv idua l pra c t i t i one r se rv ices to s i t ua t ions where th ep r a c t i t i o n e r i s a f a c i l i t y employee whose employment co n t r ac tprov ides fo r such b i l l i n g o r where th e pra c t i t i one r has aco n t r ac t with th e f a c i l i t y permi t t ing it to b i l l . The r eg u l a t i o nthus t r e a t s an i nd iv idua l pra c t i t i one r as a "prov ider" o ff a c i l i t y se rv ices fo r purposes o f b i l l i ng , and permi t s th ep r a c t i t i o n e r to b i l l fo r th e profes s iona l component o f th ef a c i l i t y s e r v i ce s , unless th e pra c t i t i one r has agreed to l e t th ef a c i l i t y b i l l .Moreover, even if d i r e c t b i l l i n g by th e p r a c t i t i o n e r i sconsidered a cho ice -' made e i t h e r by th e f a c i l i t y andprac t i t i one r t oge the r o r by a s t a t e - r a t h e r than a requ i rement ,t h a t does no t change th e import o f the p ra c t i c e . Since se rv icesprovided by a p r a c t i t i o n e r as pa r t of i npa t i en t psych ia t r i ch o sp i t a l se rv ices may be b i l l ed by the p r a c t i t i o n e r who furnishedth e s e r v i ce s , th e f a c t t ha t a se rv ice i s b i l l ed by th ep r a c t i t i o n e r does not by i t s e l f e s t a b l i s h t h a t th e se rv ice i s no tp a r t o f th e i n p a t i e n t se rv ices provided by th e lMD.eMS provided no evidence to suppor t a genera l f inding t h a t a l l o fth e c la ims a t i s sue were fo r s e rv ices provided out s ide the lMDsby non-lMD prov ide rs o ther than th e a ud i to r ' s d ec l a r a t i o nregarding her understanding of th e claims provided by Texas fo ra u d i t review and h er unders tand ing t ha t th e lCNs ass igned to th eclaims ind ica ted they were fo r ou tpa t ien t s e rv ices .


19/34

19 with r espec t to th e IeNs, Texas submit ted an a f f i d a v i t from DianeBroadhurst , an experienced c la ims processor , averr ing t ha t , whileth e IeNs fo r cla ims from a h o s p i t a l (submitted on a eMS UB-40/1350 form) would ind ica te whether th e se rv ice was an i n p a t i e n to r ou tpa t i en t se rv ice , th e IeNs assigned to cla ims fo rp ro fes s iona l s e rv ices (on eMS 1500 cla ims forms) would no t .Reply Br. Ex. A. We f ind t h i s sta tement to be cred ib le , givenh e r exper ience and given eMS's f a i l u r e to fu r the r address t h i si s sue d es p i t e an oppor tuni ty to do so . eMS d id no t provide anyb a s i s on which we could determine t ha t th e IeNs fo r th e eMS 1500claims forms a t i s sue in d i ca t e t ha t th e se rv ices were fo rou tpa t i en t s e r v i ce s .In any even t , as we di scuss below, to rebu t th e au d i t f ind ings ,Texas presen ted evidence t ha t i n f a c t some of th e r e levan t cla imsforms con ta in p l ace o f se rv ice codes and o ther in fo rmat ion t h a tshows t h a t th e claimed se rv ices were provided in th e IMDsinwhich th e ch i ld ren re s ided . Thus, th e a u d i t o r ' s understandingt h a t a l l of the cla ims disal lowed were fo r se rv ices providedou ts ide th e IMDs was c l e a r ly er roneous .

B. Texas presen ted convincing, re l i a b l e ev idence tha tsome (but no t a l l ) o f th e disa l lowed c la ims were fo ral lowable i n p a t i e n t p s y c h ia t r ic s e r v ic e s .

Texas a s s e r t s t h a t - th e aud i to r s d id not remove from the d i sa l lowed cla ims

a l l cla ims fo r al lowable i npa t i en t psych ia t r i c s e r v i ce s ; th e au d i t workpapers did not conta in s u f f i c i e n t c la imsd e t a i l fo r anyone to determine what type o f se rv ice was

provided o r where it was provided, so Texas obta inedmore de ta i l ed cla ims data ; and the ana lys i s /evidence o f a random, s t a t i s t i c a l sample o fth e de ta i l ed cla ims documentat ion shows t ha t 48.7% o f

th e disal lowed cla ims fo r medica l se rv ices were fo rp sy c h i a t r i c - r e l a t e d se rv ices o r i n p a t i e n t medicaleva lua t ion and management se rv ices provided byphys ic ians o r c l i n i c a l psychologis t s a t th e IMD in whichth e ch i ld r es ided and t ha t 44.0479% of the managed ca rese rv ices (which Texas l a t e r c l a r i f i e d meant pr imary ca rephys ic ian management se rvices) were fo r such se rv icesprovided a t th e IMD in which th e ch i ld re s ided .

To suppor t th e r e l i a b i l i t y of its sampling methodology and th econclus ions Texas reached based on i t s ana lys i s o f the sample


20/34

20 c la ims documentation, Texas submit ted wi th i t s appeal b r i e f thefo l lowing: copies of paper o r e lec t ron ic cla ims forms for thesample cla ims (TX Ex. 11) ; and a f f i dav i t s expla in ing the bases fo r the ana lys i s andconclus ions reached and th e sampling method used (with

suppor t ing at tachments) (TX Exs. 6-8) .Exhib i t 6 i s an a f f i d a v i t by Diane Broadhurst , who i s u n i t Leadin the Claims Adminis t ra tor Contrac t Management sec t ion of th eMedicaid/CHIP Divis ion , HHSC, and was formerly employed by theNat iona l Her i tage Insurance Company (NHIC), which processedcla ims fo r Texas dur ing th e r e levan t pe r iod . She a t t e s t s t h a tshe i s fami l i a r with th e Texas cla ims process ing system, t h a t shereques ted copies of the paper o r e lec t ron ic cla ims formscon ta in ing d e t a i l s such as the p lace of se rv ice , the se rv ice ( s )a c tua l ly rendered (by procedure code) , the provider t h a t renderedthe se rv ice (by prov ide r number), and the pa id amount p er cla im,p er d e t a i l . She a l so supervi sed Policy Analyst Rhonda Reed inh e r review and ana lys i s of disa l lowed c la ims . Ms. Broadhursta t t e s t s t h a t th e ana lys i s showed t ha t a l a rge percentage o f th edisa l lowed c la ims were cla ims fo r p ro fes s iona l i n p a t i e n t se rv icesand t h a t fu r t h e r ana lys i s of profes s iona l i npa t i en t se rv icesc la ims revea led t h a t the cla ims were fo r p ro fes s iona l i npa t i e n tse rv ices ac tua l ly rendered ons i t e a t the IMD. Ms. Broadhursta t t e s t s t h a t "based on my extens ive knowledge and exper t i se o fc la ims f i l i ng requirements par t i cu l a r l y as it r e l a t e s to theTexas Medicaid Program[,] I agree wi th th e methodology [Ms. Reed]used in h e r ana lys i s and with the r e su l t i n g f indings ." TX. Ex.6, a t page.Exhib i t 7 i s the a f f i dav i t of Rhonda Reed, who descr ibes he r s e l fas c u r re n t l y re spons ib l e fo r ana lyz ing and implementing c la imsprocess ing po l i c i e s and fo r ensuring con t rac to r compliance. Shehas been in her cur ren t pos i t ion fo r only 17 months bu t hasworked fo r 16 years with HHSC. She a t t e s t s t ha t she worked withth e cla ims admin is t r a to r to re t r i eve de ta i l ed informat ion r e l a t e dto th e disa l lowed cla ims. She expla ins t ha t , us ing informat ionobta ined from th e au d i t workpapers, the cur ren t Texas cla imsadmin is t r a to r was able to pu l l up th e cla ims d e t a i l s shown inTexas Exhib i t 5, based on which she was able to determine t h a tmany o f the p ro fes s iona l s e rv ices were ac tua l ly rendered on- s i t e2nda t th e IMD in which th e c l i e n t was a re s iden t . TX Ex. 7,page.Ms. Reed fu r t h e r expla ins in her a f f i dav i t t ha t , s ince no t a l l ofth e cla ims d e t a i l contained a provider name o r number fo r th e


21/34

21 f a c i l i t y , she reques ted copies of th e o r i g i n a l cla ims images fo rth e c la ims. ~ o r th e cla ims processed by former con t rac to r NHIC,they had to use "a l abor - in tens ive and manual process" tor e t r i e ve and p r i n t images, so she decided to reques t as t a t i s t i c a l l y va l id random sample. Id . In response , th e HHSCS t ra t e g i c Decision Suppor t re turned l i s t s t ha t cons t i tu t eds t a t i s t i c a l l y va l id random samples of th e claims, a t t ached asExhib i t s 9 (medical se rvices) and 10 (managed care cla ims) .Exhib i t 11 conta ins cop ies o f th e ac tu a l paper c la ims t h a t weremailed in by th e prov ide r o r th e e lec t ron ic cla im images that"were submit ted e l e c t ron ic a l ly . Ms. Reed used place o f se rv icecodes to determine whether se rv ices were rendered on an i n p a t i e n tb a s i s ; s tandard procedure (CPT) codes to v a l i d a t e t ha t th e codeswere e i t h e r fo r psych ia t r i c /counse l ing se rv ices o r medicaleva lua t ion and management serv ices t ha t are commonly used byp s y c h i a t r i s t s to b i l l fo r th e se rv ices they render to pa t i e n t s ;and th e name and address o f the f a c i l i t y where se rv ices wererendered to determine whether th e se rv ices were rendered a t th eIMD in which th e c l i e n t was a res iden t . Based on t he se da tae lements , Ms. Reed a t t e s t s , she determined if th e se rv ices "werea c tua l ly rendered a t th e IMD" and " i f the se rv ices being renderedwere fo r th e profes s iona l components t ha t were fo r s e rv ices t h a tranged from Psychologica l and /or p s y ch i a t r i c Serv ices toEvalua t ion and Management Serv ices as def ined by CPT." Id . a t 3dpage. She then crea ted th e Excel spreadshee t a t Texas Exhib i t12. She determined t ha t o f th e 577 medica l se rv ices cla imsreviewed, a t l e a s t 48.7% o f th e cla ims were rendered a t th e IMDfo r va l id psych ia t r i c re l a t ed se rv ices , and t ha t o f th e 252managed care cla ims reviewed, a t l e a s t 44.0479% were rendered a tth e IMD fo r va l id psych ia t r i c r e l a t e d se rv ices . Id . a t 4 t h page .Exhib i t 8 i s th e a f f i d a v i t of Monica Smoot, who has a mastersdegree in psychology with a subspec ia l ty in s t a t i s t i c s and 11yea rs o f exper ience . Ms. Smoot expla ins why she chose th e samples i z e s she d id ( in order to g e t a 95% confidence l eve l ) . and whats t a t i s t i c a l sof tware package she used to genera te th e randomsamples . She a f f i rms t ha t th e computer package genera ted th elists o f sample cla ims a t Texas Exhibi t s 9 and 10.Texas reques ted an oppor tuni ty to submit cla ims forms fo r a l l o fth e cla ims if the Board decided t ha t th e sample documenta t ion i sn ot su f f i c i en t . 7

7 Texas a l so sa id t h a t because th e au d i t was based onclaims da ta t ha t i s o ld (from 9/97 to 8/2000) , Texas was n ot ab leto ob ta in a l l o f th e cla ims forms. Texas sa id t ha t , if th e Board(cont inued ... )


22/34

22 In response , CMS d id not chal lenge th e s t a t i s t i c a l methods Texasused to choose the sample on a random b as i s and to determinesample s i z e . We f ind the methods to be va l id , based on therecord before u s . CMS a l so did not submit any evidence tod ispu te the accuracy of th e in format ion on the cla ims forms o rt h e i r a u the n t i c i t y .CMS p o in t s out t h a t Texas in e f f e c t has conceded t h a t , fo r someo f th e sample c la ims , Texas .has no documentat ion to show t h a tthey were fo r i n p a t i e n t se rv ices provided in th e IMD in which th echi ld r es ided . We agree and uphold the pa r t of th e disa l lowancer e l a t e d t o such cla ims on t ha t b a s i s .On the o ther hand, CMS concedes t ha t some of the sample cla imsforms have informat ion showing as the p lace of se rv ice the IMD inwhich the i de n t i f i e d Medicaid ch i ld res ided . CMS B r. a t 13. CMSsugges ts , however, t ha t only th e paper , non-e lec t ron ic cla imsforms i de n t i f y the place where the s e rv ices were rendered and th ei den t i t y o f the b i l l i n g prov ide r . This i s i ncor rec t . Not onlydo th e e l e c t ro n i c .claims copies in Texas Exhibi t 11 conta ini npa t i e n t p lace of se rv ice codes , but many of them a l sospec i f i ca l l y i de n t i f y th e IMD in which the ch i ld res ided as th e" f a c i l i t y prov ider" (as d i s t i n c t from th e " h i l l i ng prov ider" o r" re fe r r ing prov ider" ) . As Ms. Reed explained in h er a f f i d a v i t ,the e lec t ronic cla ims show place of serv ice under th e columnheading "PS" and in a box fo r "FAC PROV NUMBER" and "NAME." TX

3 rdEx. 7, a t page. s

7( cont inued)were to cons ider the percentage of cla ims disal lowed in e r r o rbased on th e number of cla ims f i l e s t ha t were located , then theBoard could f ind t ha t approximately 58.6% of the disal lowedmedical se rv ices cla ims were fo r s e rv ices provided in th e IMD.We dec l ine to make any such f inding. Texas provided no evidencebased on which we could determine t ha t cla ims fo r which Texascould n o t l oca te any documentat ion would have been fo r i n p a t i e n tp sy c h i a t r i c se rv ices in the same percentage as th e cla ims fo rwhich Texas could loca te documentat ion.

S CMS complained t ha t seve ra l of th e cla ims forms itrece ived were " too i l l e g i b l e to read ." CMS Br. a t 15, n. 5. Inr ep ly , Texas of fe red to provide l eg ib le cop ies , and CMS d id n otr e i t e r a t e t h i s complaint . The e lec t ron ic forms submit ted to usa re su f f i c i en t l y c lea r to al low us t o a sc e r t a i n the c r i t i c a linformat ion , when read with th e o ther informat ion in th e record .


23/34

23 Even with r espec t to th e paper c la ims t ha t CMS concedes show th epe r t i ne n t IMD as the p lace of se rv ice ( in Box #32) and th eb i l l i n g prov ide r ( in Box #33), CMS argues t ha t th e cla ims da tasubmit ted by Texas do not demonstra te t ha t those se rv icesprovided in an IMD were provided by the IMD because - the b i l l i n g phys ic ians a re not l i s t e d on th e OIG list o fIMD prov ide rs ; and Texas has not presented any evidence t ha t the b i l l i n g phys ic ians have a provider agreement with Texas to

provide IMD se rv ices pursuant to th e Texas Adminis t ra t ive Code.

CMS Br. a t 13-14, c i t ing 25 TAC 419.373(5) . In reply , Texaspo in t s out t ha t th e Texas Admin is t ra t ive Code provis ion c i t e d byCMS (TAC 419.373) app l ies only to IMD se rv ices to ind iv idua l sover age 65. Texas also po in t s out t ha t , in any even t , th e terms"IMD" and "IMD prov ider" in t ha t prov i s ion r e f e r only to the 'f ac i l i t y o r hosp i t a l , n o t to the profess iona ls /prac t i t ione rs whoprov ide se rv ices in th e f a c i l i t y o r hosp i t a l . Texas providedevidence t h a t shows t h a t it permi t s a p r a c t i t i o n e r to b i l l fo rh i s / h e r se rv ices provided as pa r t of a f ac i l i t y ' s i n p a t i e n tse rv ices if th e p r a c t i t i o n e r i s "enrol led" in th e Texas Medicaidprogram. TX Reply Br. Ex. B, a t 2nd page. In response , CMSpo in t s to nothing in f edera l o r s t a t e r egu la t ions o r po l i c i e st h a t would r equ i re a phys ic ian o r c l i n i c a l psychologis t tosepara te ly qua l i fy as an IMD and to have an IMD prov ide ragreement with a s t a t e in orde r to eva lua te o r t r e a t pa t i e n t s inan IMD and to b i l l fo r those se rv ices . 9Thus, we r e j e c t CMS's pos i t ion t ha t the fac t t ha t th e "b i l l i ngproviders" shown on th e cla ims forms were no t IMDs with IMD

9 For purposes of a Medicaid fee - fo r -se rv ice programgenera l ly , the term "provider" means "any ind iv idua l o r en t i tyfurn ish ing Medicaid se rv ices under an agreement with th e Medicaidagency." 42 C.P.R. 400.3 ; compare 400.2 (Medicare de f in i t i ono f "provider ." ) Not a l l Medicaid providers a re requi red ,however, to have th e ' type of "prov ider agreement" t ha t f a c i l i t i e sa re requ i red to have under 42 C.F.R. Par t 489, s ince the term"provider" i s def ined more narrowly fo r t ha t purpose and does no tinc lude ind iv idua l pra c t i t i one r s . We a l so note t ha t , unl ike th e

, de f i n i t i on of " inpa t i en t psych ia t r i c h o s p i t a l se rv ice s" fo rpurposes o f Medicare, th e Medicaid de f in i t i on of " inpa t i en tp sy c h i a t r i c h o sp i t a l se rv ices fo r ch i ld ren under age 21" does notspec i f i ca l l y exclude th e pro fes s iona l s e rv ices of phys ic i ans andc l i n i c a l psychologis ts . Compare Act 1861 with Act 1905(h) .


24/34

24 prov ide r agreements undercuts th e evidence presented by Texas toshow t h a t th e cla ims were, in fac t , fo r i npa t i en t psych ia t r i cse rv ices provided by th e IMDs in which th e ch i ld ren wereres id ing .CMS does, in response to th e evidence Texas presented , argue t h a tsome of the sample cla ims Texas sa id were provided in an IMD were" c l e a r ly improper" because they were provided outs ide the IMD bynon-IMD prov ider s . CMS Br. a t 14. Spec i f i ca l ly , CMS r a i s e sques t ions abou t nine o f the paper c la ims, ind ica t ing t h a t thesea re j u s t examples o f s imi la r c la ims. For these c la ims , CMS l i s t sthe in fo rmat ion in Box #3 2 (Place of Service) and Box #33(B i l l ing Provider) . Id . a t 15. CMS says t ha t , s ince Bo x #32 oneach of these cla ims "does not list an IMD provider t h a t wasinc luded on th e OIG's list of IMD prov ider s , " CMS proper lydisa l lowed these c la ims. Id . a t 16.In reply , Texas submit ted a second a f f i dav i t from DianeBroadhurst as Exhibi t A to th e r ep ly b r i e f . In t h i s a f f i d a v i t ,Ms. Broadhurst di scusse s the CMS examples of se rv ices it sa idwere provided o ~ t s i d e th e f a c i l i t y , and expla ins why Texas s t a f fdetermined these were va l id cla ims fo r i npa t i en t psych ia t r i cse rv ices . She says it i s a common p ra c t i c e fo r i n p a t i e n tf a c i l i t i e s to have re l a t ionsh ips with e i t he r phys ic ian ,psych ia t ry , o r o ther hea l th p ro fes s iona l groups t ha t come in toth e f a c i l i t y to provide medical , behaviora l hea l th , o r o therprofes s iona l t rea tment to th e pa t i e n t s , and t ha t th e group thenb i l l s us ing as place of se rv ice e i t he r code 51 ( inpa t i en tp sy c h i a t r i c f ac i l i t y ) o r code 21 ( inpa t ien t hos p i t a l ) , e i t h e r o f5thwhich i s acceptable on th e cla im. TX Reply Br. Ex. A, a tunnumbered page. With i t s supplemental reply , Texas a l sosubmit ted Ins t ruc t ions from th e Texas Medicaid ProviderProcedures Manuals from 1997-2000, which conta in in fo rmat ion suchas b i l l i n g i n s t ru c t i o n s , model cla ims forms, and codeinformat ion . TX Supplemental (Supp.) Exs. 15-18.The f i r s t s ix examples given by CMS in i t s response b r i e f arefrom cla ims forms t h a t appear in Texas Exhibi t 11a, a t pages 12,18, 21, 25, 28, and 37. With r espec t to these examples, Ms.Broadhurst expla ins t ha t -

both th e b i l l i n g and f a c i l i t y prov ide rs a re l i s t e d ' i nblocks 33 and 32 as SW Psych ia t r i c :Physicians a t 8535Tom Sl ick Dr. , San Antonio, Texas 78229-3363. Inresearching t h i s psych ia t r i c phys ic ians group it wasdetermined t h a t they a re d i rec t l y a f f i l i a t e d withSouthwest Mental Health Center (SMHC) , an IMD loca ted a t8535 Tom Sl ick Dr. , San Antonio, Texas 78229-3363. SW


25/34

25 Psych ia t r i c Physicians group provides both i n p a t i e n t andou tpa t i en t care a t SMHC (IMD f a c i l i t y ) . While th ecla ims forms fo r examples 1 through 6 o f [CMS's] t ab ledo not show SMHC as th e f a c i l i t y prov ide r in block 32,block 24(b) does show a place o f se rv ice code o f 51( Inpa t ien t psych ia t r i c f a c i l i t y ) . Based on th edocumented cla ims data and the fac t t ha t th e p sy c h i a t r i cgroup and the IMD are loca ted a t th e same address , it i sapparen t t h a t the se rv ices were rendered a t th e IMD(SMHC) .

6 thId . a t unnumbered page. We examined these cla ims forms andth e r e l a t e d informat ion from th e aud i to r s in Texas Exhibi t 5, a t455, 448, 434, 428, 324, and 413. The comparison shows t h a t , fo reach o f these c la ims, Southwest Mental Health Center was th e IMDin which th e ch i ld re s ided , and th e admission and discharge da tesfo r the ch i ld correspond to the per iod i de n t i f i e d on th e cla imsforms as "hosp i t a l i za t ion dates re l a t ed to cur ren t se rv ices . " Inadd i t ion , th e " type of se rvice" and procedure codes used (99232and 99233) on th e c la ims forms ind ica te "subsequent d a i l yh o sp i t a l care . " See, e . g . , TX Supp. Ex. 15, a t page 33-5 . Thus,based on th e record as a whole, we f ind t ha t Texas adequate lydocumented t h a t t he se sample cla ims q u a l i f y as cla ims fo rs e r v i ce s provided in and by th e IMD.On th e o th e r hand, we agree with CMS t h a t documentat ion t h a t i scomparable to t h a t fo r th e cla ims CMS gives as examples 7 through9 i s no t adequate to suppor t th e a l lowab i l i ty o f th e c la ims, evenconsidered wi th th e support ing a f f i d a v i t s .For CMS example 7 (from Texas Exhib i t 11d, a t 836) , Ms.Broadhurs t j u s t i f i e s a conclusion t ha t th e se rv ices were fo ri npa t i e n t psych ia t r i c se rv ices by expla in ing t h a t -

th e b i l l i n g provider i s Psych ia t r i c Aff i l i a t e s o f Texasin block 33 and th e f a c i l i t y provider in block 32 i sMed-Forest Springs a t 1120 Cypress Sta t ion , Houston.The cla ims shows a POS code of 3, which i s a va l idi n p a t i e n t f a c i l i t y POS code fo r paper c la ims. Theaddress 1120 Cypress Sta t ion , Houston i s In t raca re NorthHospi t a l , an i de n t i f i e d Texas IMD. An assumption can bemade t h a t th e se rv ices were rendered a t th e IMD and th eb i l l e r en te red the wrong f a c i l i t y name.

6 thTX Reply Br . , Ex. A, a t to 7 th pages . For CMS examples 8 and9, Ms. Broadhurs t s t a t e s t ha t - th e b i l l i n g provider i s l i s t e d as Primary Medicine


26/34

26C l in i c s in block 33, with Drs. Timothy Sharma and WayneKel le r as th e performing phys ic ians , who arep s y c h i a t r i s t s . Primary Medicine Cl in ics i s a l so l i s t e das th e f a c i l i t y provider in block 32, with a POS code o f21 in block 24(b) . In block 17(a) of bo th claim forms,th e name of th e r e f e r r i n g provider i s l i s t e d as e i t h e rIn t raca re North Hospi ta l o r In t r acare Med C tr Hosp. Iti s a common b i l l i n g e r ro r fo r f i l e r s to reve rse th eplacement o f the f a c i l i t y and r e f e r r i n g prov ide rs , whichi s most l i ke l y th e case in these two examples.

Id . a t a t 7th page. Ms. Broadhurs t a t t e s t s t ha t the re i s a"reasonab le c e r t a in ty t ha t these se rv ices were rendered ons i t e a tth e IMD and are va l id cla ims fo r th e profes s iona l behaviora lhea l th se rv ices rendered to th e IMD res iden t s . " Id .We f i r s t note t ha t examples 7-9 in CMS's b r i e f are fo r managedcare cla ims which Texas d id not include in the list o f th e 111managed care sample cla ims its ana lys i s found were fo r i n p a t i e n tp sy c h i a t r i c se rv ices rendered in th e IMD in which th e ch i ldr es ided . TX Ex. 12b, informat ion fo r ICNs 204400175216033 (MedFores t Spr ings ) , 204400143325045 (primary Medicine C l in i c s , and2044001433253038 (Primary Medicine Clinics) .1 0 On th e o th e rhand, s i m i l a r cla ims documentat ion was submit ted fo r some sampleclaims t h a t were included in the 111 sample managed care cla imsTexas a s s e r t s were al lowable . Spec i f i ca l ly , documenta t ion fo rone paper c la im (with ICN 204400220374058) shows Med Fores tSpr ings as the p l ace o f se rv ice in Box #32 and Psych ia t r i cAssoc ia tes as th e b i l l i n g provider in Box #33. TX Ex. 11e, a t989. Simi la r ly , th e documents fo r e igh t sample e lec t ron ic cla imsshow In t raca re as the r e f e r r i n g provider and Primary MedicineC l in i c s as th e f a c i l i t y prov ide r . TX Ex. 11e, a t 997, 999, 1001,1003, 1005, 1009, 1025, 1031. 11 Also, the p lace o f se rv ice code

10 The documents re l a t ed to th e 111 cla ims fo r which th eTexas summary shows "yes" in th e column l abe led "Rendered in IMD"a re in Texas Exhib i t 11e, r a t h e r than in Exhibi t l1d .Apparent ly , CMS d id not r e a l i z e t h i s because th e Reed A f f id av i tmistaken ly says they a re in Exhib i t 11d. See TX Ex. 7.

11 We note t ha t th e paper cla im form a t page 1048 o f TexasExhib i t l l e a l so has Primary Medicine Cl in ics in Box 32, b u t itc l e a r ly was a t t ached to the form a t page 1047, which has th e sameICN, 394400111681054, and shows In t r acare Hospi ta l , with itsc o r re c t address , as the p lace o f se rv ice . Moreover, both formshave 12/09/99 to 12/21/99 as th e "hosp i t a l i za t ion da te s r e l a t e d(cont inued ... )


27/34

27 fo r t he se cla ims i s 21, which could be used fo r i n p a t i e n th o sp i t a l se rv ices othe r than se rv ices in th e IMD in which th ec h i l d r es ided . Id . While it may be t r u e , as Ms. Broadhurs ta t t e s t s , t h a t th e f laws in th e documentat ion were simply th er e s u l t o f common b i l l i n g e r ro r s , we dec l ine to make t h a tassumption fo r t he se c la ims. The ana lys i s she and Ms. Reedperformed t r ea ted some s imi la r cla ims documentat ion as no ts u f f i c i e n t to show t ha t th e se rv ices were rendered in an IMD. TXEx. 12b ( l ines re fe r r i n g to Med Fores t Springs o r PrimaryMedicine Cl in ics , with a "no" in th e re l evan t column). Thea f f i d a v i t s provide no explana t ion fo r t r e a t i ng t he se s i m i l a rclaims d i f f e r e n t l y .For a l l of the o th e r sample cla ims, however, we f ind t h a t th edocumentation and evidence submit ted by Texas, inc luding p lace o fse rv ice codes and procedure codes t ha t i n d i ca t e th e cla ims werefo r i n p a t i e n t p sy c h i a t r ic , psychotherapy, o r eva lua t ion andmanagement s e r v i ce s , adequate to rebut th e au d i t f indings t h a tth e se rv ices were provided outs ide the IMD by prov ide rs o th e rthan th e IMD in which th e ch i ld re s ided .In sum, we uphold th e disa l lowance r e l a t e d t o cla ims fo r whichTexas concedes its ana lys i s d id not show th e cla ims were fo ri npa t i e n t se rv ices . For nine o f th e 111 sample managed careclaims Texas i de n t i f i e d as i npa t i en t psych ia t r i c se rv ices , wef ind th e evidence inadequate to show t ha t the se rv ices werea l lowable . For th e remaining sample claims, we f ind t h a t Texashas submit ted adequate evidence to suppor t its a n a l y s i s , a n d t h a tCMS has provided no persuas ive reason fo r r e j e c t i n g t h a tevidence.I I I . eMS's argument that payments for the profess ionals 'inpat ient serv ices would dupl icate payments to the IMDs becauseTexas used an "a l l inclusive" per diem rate to reimburse the IMDsfor the ir serv ices i s unfounded.

11 ( cont inued)to cu r r en t se rv ices . " This per iod corresponds to t he da te s o fadmiss ion to and discharge from In t r acare fo r t he ch i ld a t i s sue(Medicaid #510734869). TX Ex. 5, Managed Care Claims Tab a t 58.,The procedure code i s 99233 (subsequent h o s p i t a l care) fo r eachs e r v i ce da te between 12/10/99 and 12/20/99 , and 99239 (hosp i ta ldischarge day management) fo r 12/21/99 , th e day the ch i ld wasdischarged from In t raca re . TX. Ex. 11e, a t 1047-1048. Thus, wef ind t h i s documentat ion adequate to show th e cla ims on th e formwere fo r th e i n p a t i e n t psych ia t r i c hosp i ta l s e rv ices In t r a c a reprovided to th e ch i ld .


28/34

28

In its response br i e f , CMS ra i sed fo r th e f i r s t t ime a ques t ionabout whether separate payments to p ro fes s iona l s prov id ingse rv ices in th e IMDs would dup l ica te payments al ready made to thef a c i l i t i e s . CMS c i t e s to provis ions of chapte rs 355 and 419 ofthe Texas Adminis t ra t ive Code regard ing the reimbursementmethodology fo r "IMD se rv ices . " CMS Response Br. a t 7. CMSacknowledges t ha t the c r i t e r i a and methodology in t he seprov is ions dea l with "serv ices to ind iv idua l s aged 65 and o lder , "bu t asse r t s t ha t t he p rov i s ions a re "re levant and prov ideguidance to a prov ider ' s e l i g i b i l i t y fo r reimbursement" fo rse rv ices to ind iv idua l s aged 21 and younger. Id . Based on th ec i t ed prov is ions of the Texas Admin is t ra t ive Code, CMS arguest h a t the payments were not cons i s ten t with th e Texasreimbursement methodology, which provides t ha t the per diem r a t ei s " inc lus ive of a l l cos ts" so t ha t , to the ex ten t a b i l l i n gphys ic i an seeks reimbursement fo r IMD se rv ices , he must "submitcos t s to an IMD provider fo r inc lus ion in th e IMD's Medicare co s tr e por t . " Id . a t 17.A f te r Texas objec ted in i t s reply br i e f to CMS r a i s ing t h i s newi s sue , th e Board se t fu r the r procedures . Texas was given anoppor tun i ty to supplement i t s r ep ly and exh ib i t s , fo l lowed by aCMS su r rep ly and a f i na l Texas response . The evidence Texaspresen ted shows persuas ive ly t ha t the re i s no mer i t to CMS's newa s s e r t i on .

A. Texas presented persuas ive evidence tha t th e IMDs'p er diem ra tes did not inc lude the cos t s o f pro fes s iona lserv ices .

The evidence shows t ha t Texas had two approved reimbursementmethodologies fo r in pa t i en t psych ia t r i c hosp i t a l s during th ea u d i t per iod . The f i r s t was th e Sta te Plan methodology under th efo l lowing prov i s ion , which has been in e f f e c t s ince 1992:

EPSDT DIAGNOSTIC AND TREATMENT SERVICES NOT OTHERWISECOVERED UNDER THE STATE PLANInpa t i en t psych ia t r i c h o s p i t a l s e rv ices furnished toEPSDT rec ip ien ts . The psych ia t r i c hosp i t a l must beaccred i ted by th e Jo i n t Commission on Accredi ta t ion ofHeal thcare Operat ions (JCAHO). The s ing le s t a t e agencyo r i t s designee re imburses psych ia t r i c h o sp i t a l s us ingMedicare pr inc ip les of reasonable cos t reimbursementfound a t 42 CFR 413, but without applying the Tax Equi tyand F i s ca l Respons ib i l i ty Act (TEFRA) r a t e of increasel i m i t s . The s ing le s t a t e agency o r i t s des igneee s t a b l i sh e s in ter im payment r a t e s ....


29/34

29Except fo r payment as descr ibed in t h i s a t tachment fo ri n p a t i e n t hosp i t a l se rv ices , payment fo r au thor i zedmedica l ly necessary se rv ices requi red to diagnose andt r e a t a condi t ion found on EPSDT medical screen ing w i l lbe based on ex i s t ing Medicare and Medicaid reimbursementmethodologies .

TX Supp. Ex. 1 . As Texas expla ins , the Medicare hosp i t a lprospec t ive payment system d id n ot a t th e t ime apply top sy c h i a t r i c hosp i t a l s o r u n i t s , and the reasonable cos tre imbursement methodology appl ied only to payments to th eh o sp i t a l fo r s e rv ices covered by P a r t A s ince Medicare reimbursesfo r p ro fes s iona l se rv ices under Par t B. TX Supp. Br. a t 9-10 .The ev idence support ing t h i s inc ludes th e Medicare Prov iderReimbursement Manual and an a f f i d a v i t by Richard Bledsoe . TXSupp. Exs. 4 and 9.The Medicare manual d is t ingu ishes between se rv ices a profes s iona lprov ides to a hosp i t a l t ha t b e n e f i t th e g en e ra l popula t ion o f th ehosp i t a l o r a re emergency se rv ices (which are ca l l ed "prov iderserv ices" fo r purposes o f reasonable cos t reimbursement) ands e r v i ce s th e profes s iona l provides to i nd iv idua l pa t i e n t s ( ca l l ed"pro fes s iona l se rvices") t ha t a re not considered an al lowablecos t fo r purposes o f determining a hosp i t a l ' s p er diemre imbursement r a t e . According to the Bledsoe A f f id av i t , s inceCMS approved Texas using th e Medicare methodology, Medicaid IMDsin Texas were requi red to use CMS-approved Medicare sof tware fo rt h e i r co s t repor t s . TX Supp. Ex. 9, a t 2. The sof twareau toma t i ca l ly excludes th e cos t of th e profes s iona l componentfrom th e al lowable cos t s used i n s e t t i ng th e p e r diem r a t e . Id .a t 3-4 . The IMDs a l so were requi red to fo l low i n s t ru c t i o n s t h a tprovided fo r exclud ing such co s t s . Id . a t 2-3. Attachments toth e Bledsoe Aff idav i t inc lude th e i n s t ruc t ions and the IMDs' co s trepor t s showing ad jus tments fo r profes s iona l s e rv ices c o s t s .These cos t repor t s each conta in Worksheet A-8-2, which i d e n t i f i e sthe p ro fes s iona l s e rv ices cos t s , if any, to be excluded from th eIMDs' co s t s used fo r r a t e - se t t i ng .The second reimbursement methodology was under a se l e c t i v econ t rac t ing program ca l l ed the LoneSTAR Waiver. Texas nego t ia tedwith IMDs in th e l a rge s t metropo l i t an a reas fo r p er diem r a t e st h a t were pa id on a prospec t ive b as i s ( i . e . , n ot sub jec t toad jus tment based on ac tu a l c o s t s ) . Texas expla ins t h a t , s inceth e s t a r t i n g po in t fo r t he se nego t ia t ions was based on th eh o s p i t a l ' s l a t e s t aud i t ed cos t r epor t (and the r e su l t i n g p e r diemva lue) , the nego t i a t ed reimbursement ra te s n eces s a r i l y excludedth e co s t s as soc ia ted with profe s s iona l se rv ices . TX Supp. Br. a t14, c i t i ng A f f id av i t of Richard Pe te r s , TX Supp. Ex. 8.


30/34

30Texas a l so submi t t ed fu r the r suppor t fo r i t s a s se r t i o n s ,i nc lud ing an a f f i d a v i t by Kevin Nolt ing , Direc tor of Hospi ta lReimbursement fo r HHSC, and formerly Chief Financ ia l O f f i ce r ofthe Texas Department of Mental Heal th and Mental Retarda t ion . TXReply Br. Ex. B. Attached to t h i s a f f i dav i t i s an example of aMedicare cos t r epor t fo r the Aust in Sta te Hospi ta l (withi n s t ruc t ions ) , showing " typ ica l " adjustments to exclude from th eca lcu la t ion of th e i npa t i en t p er diem r a t e cos t s as soc ia ted withse rv ices provided to , individual pa t i e n t s by profes s iona l s such aspsychologis ts , ps yc h ia t r i s t s , and genera l phys ic i ans .

B. eMS presented no evidence to support a f ind ing t ha tTexas was paying an "al l - inc lus ive" ra te to th e IMDs,and its arguments about the evidence Texas presentedhave no mer i t .eMS submi t t ed no evidence to suppor t i t s a s se r t i o n t h a t Texas waspaying an "a l l - i n c l u s i v e " per diem r a t e fo r i npa t i en t psych ia t r i ch o sp i t a l se rv ices fo r ch i ld ren dur ing th e disa l lowance per iod .Ins tead , CMS t r i e s to undercu t th e evidence Texas submi t t ed , byr a i s ing quest ions , based on the evidence presented by Texas. Noneo f these arguments has mer i t .F i r s t , CMS ques t ions whether th e quoted Sta te Plan provis ion infac t app l i ed to the s e rv ices a t i s sue . CMS claims in e f f e c t t h a tit cannot t e l l if th e quoted prov i s ion app l ies because Texas hasno t provided evidence t h a t the se rv ices a t i s sue were EPSDTse rv ices . As Texas po in t s out , however, th e a u d i t found th ese rv ices were provided to ind iv idua l s under age 21, and apre r e qu i s i t e fo r claims fo r i npa t i en t psych ia t r i c f a c i l i t yse rv ices fo r ind iv idua l s under age 21 i s t h a t they be medica l lynecessary . Also, CMS's own Sta te Medicaid Manual (a t 4390)r equ i res a s t a t e to provide i npa t i en t psych ia t r i c se rv ices fo ri n d iv id u a l s under age 21 as EPSDT se rv ices i f they a re determinedto be medica l ly necessary (even if the Sta te plan does not coversuch se rv i c e s ) . Texas would need a plan p rov i s ion spec i f i ca l l ye s t a b l i sh i n g a reimbursement method f9 r i npa t i en t psych ia t r i cse rv ices requ i red by th e EPSDT Program if th e Texas Sta te Pland id not opt to cover such se rv ices genera l ly . Documents r e l a t e dto the Sta te Plan prov i s ion on which Texas r e l i e s show t ha t , a tth e t ime it was submit ted, CMS ques t ioned why Texas was n o tsubmi t t ing an amendment to cover th e se rv ices , bu t only areimbursement prov i s ion , acknowledging t ha t th e reason fo r t h i smight be t h a t th e se rv ices were being provided only as an EPSDTbe ne f i t . TX Supp. Ex. 2.CMS s t a t e s no reason fo r no t cred i t ing a l l of th e evidence Texassubmi t t ed showing tha t , in f a c t , it was using th e Medicare


31/34

31 reasonab le cos t methodology t o ca lcu la t e th e r e levan t pe r diemr a t e s fo r IMDs not in the LoneSTAR program. As noted above, CMSacknowledges t h a t th e Texas Admin is t ra t ive Code prov i s ions onwhich its argument r e l i e s apply to se rv ices to ind iv idua l s aged65 and o lder . Moreover, CMS ci tes , to no o ther Sta te Planprov is ion apply ing t o inpa t i en t psych ia t r i c hosp i t a l se rv icesdur ing th e disa l lowance pe r iod . CMS argues merely t h a t th e TexasAdminis t ra t ive Code prov i s ion Texas c i t e s as the app l icab le one( sect ion B063(w was not e f fec t ive u n t i l 200B. CMS Surreply a t9, c i t i ng CMS Ex. 4: Yet, the ve rs ion o f t h i s prov i s ion t h a t CMSsubmit ted i s c l e a r ly th e vers ion t ha t Texas amended to adopt aprospec t ive reimbursement system, not th e vers ion t ha t was ine f f e c t during th e disa l lowance pe r iod . CMS Ex. 4. Texasexp la ins t h a t CMS approved i t s new system in 200B. TX Responseto Surreply a t 4.CMS a l so asse r t s t ha t -

Texas also did not inform CMS through its Sta te Plant h a t Texas in tended to claim FFP fo r payments made toind iv idua l s o r e n t i t i e s o ther than i npa t i en t psych ia t r i cf ac i l i t i e s o r programs. Clear ly , Texas d id n o t p laceCMS on no t ice t ha t IMDs were going to "out source" th ei n t e g ra l pa r t o f the IMD coverage fo r reimbursement o fFFP purposes namely, i npa t i en t psych ia t r i c se rv iceswhich involve act ive t rea tment of the p a t i e n t s ' mentalhea l th condi t ion .

CMS Sur rep ly a t 7. CMS should have known t h a t profes s iona lse rv ices would be reimbursed separa te ly from th e p e r diem r a t e ,however, s ince the Sta te Plan prov i s ion in ques t ion adopted a CMSr a t e - s e t t i n g methodology t ha t s pe c i f i c a l l y excludes the cos t s o fp r o f e s s io n a l se rv ices from the r a t e ca lcu la t ion . The Sta t e Planprov is ion a l so re fe r s to o ther approved reimbursement methods,and, as d iscussed above, Texas presented evidence t ha t shows itcons i s ten t ly i n t e rp re ted its plan to al low phys ic ians o r t h e i rb i l l i n g groups to b i l l separa te ly fo r Medicaid i n p a t i e n t se rv icesus ing those methods.CMS appears to have misread a s ta tement in th e Nolt ing Aff idav i t ,moreover. In expla in ing th e Medicare reasonable cos treimbursement methodology, Mr. Nolt ing s t a t e s t h a t the "per diemonly covers what would be descr ibed by a layperson as ' room andboard . ' " TX Reply Br . , Ex. A, a t 4 t h page. CMS read t h i s tomean t ha t , in fac t , only room and board was covered by the r a t e s ,argu ing t h a t such a system i s incons i s ten t with th e ac t ivet rea tment requirement . The only cos t s Mr. Nolt ing mentions asbeing excluded from th e r a t e ca lcu la t ions , however, a re th e cos t s


32/34

32 of "pro fes s iona l s such as psychologis t s , ps yc h ia t r i s t s and

3rdgenera l phys ic ians . " Id . a t page. In any even t ,notwi ths tanding Mr. Nol t ing ' s s ta tement about how a l aypersonwould descr ibe the cos t s covered by th e p er diem r a t e , the cos trepor t s submit ted by Texas (and the manual prov i s ions on CMS'sown Medicare reasonable cos t methodology) show t h a t the. p er diemr a t e covered the hosp i t a l rou t ine care cos t s , such as nurs ingse rv ices , no t j u s t room and board. This ev idence i s s t ronger andmore r e l i ab l e evidence about what the r a t e s included than th eambiguous s ta tement in th e a f f i dav i t . Thus, we r e j e c t CMS'sarguments t h a t a re based on the erroneous premise t ha t Texas waspaying only fo r cus tod ia l care , contrary to th e regu la t ions .CMS fu r t h e r argues t ha t Texas represented t h a t payments under theLoneSTAR con t rac t ing program would be "a cos t -e f fec t ive means ofproviding a ful l range of certain inpat ient services to thereques ted Medicaid popula t ion ." eMS Surreply a t 5 (emphasis inor i g i na l ) , c i t i ng TX Supp. Ex. 11, a t 1-2 . eMS says t h a t theTexas Legis la tu re d i rec ted the HHSC to ensure t h a t prov ide rsr ece iv ing con t rac t s meet the needs of Medicaid r e c ip i e n t s . I d . ,c i t i ng TX Ex. 11, a t 2-3. According to CMS, any payments tophys ic i ans made in add i t ion to the cont rac ted per diem r a t e s"were made con t ra ry to the Le g i s l a t u re ' s d i r e c t ive to ensure t

HHS Appellate Decision on Texas Health and Human Services Commission

Documents

Transcript of HHS Appellate Decision on Texas Health and Human Services Commission

HHS ReInvent Grants Management - The FDPthefdp.org/default/assets/File/Presentations/HHS... · PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT Enhance performance measurements to improve decision-making

00299-20011211 appellate decision

HHS Appellate Decision on Maine Department of Health and Human Services 2009 Targeted Case Management

After a Decision by the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate ...

ADRP Decision No. 110 · ADRP Decision 110 Steel Reinforcing Bar exported from the Republic of Turkey 1 ... Appellate Body Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization Colakoglu

NFI Gaps and Partners activities (Small) · Bade Potiskum Kwaya Kusar Mubi South Maiduguri Yola North 14 HHs 646 HHs 1,000 HHs 528 HHs 500 HHs 200 HHs 193 HHs 1,050 HHs 1600 HHs 134

BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT€¦ · 2016-03-28 · By order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, the precedential effect of this decision is limited to the case

Stephen Peterson Appellate Decision 2130388 R23

Data analytics and appellate decision making - JD Supra

HHS Appellate Decision on Texas Health and Human Services 2009

Berkeley Family Apartments, Dec. 7, 2015 NJ Appellate Court decision

Appeals in the New York State Appellate Division: Adverse ... Appellate Law Journal_Dec... · Appeals in the New York State Appellate Division: Adverse Decision? ... “stipulation

Illinois Appellate Court Decision - No. 1-11-0033

MI - MRMC Appellate Decision

HHS Appellate Decision on Georgia Department of Human Services

New York Appellate Digest. LLC · digest. llc “toxic torts” decision-summaries posted on new york appellate digest ... disclosure in this toxic torts case warranted preclusion

Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Appellate Jurisdiction)aptel.gov.in/judgements/JUdgment 57 of 2009 26.04.2010.pdf · Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Appellate Jurisdiction)

Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Appellate Jurisdiction) Appeal

Trudeau Criminal Appeal 14 1869 Document 50 Decision of Appellate Court 02-05-16

Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Appellate Jurisdiction)aptel.gov.in/judgements/Appeal No.222 of 2013_30.06.2014.pdf · Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Appellate Jurisdiction)