Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

You're probably overthinking it. Call a lawyer.

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 409.913 - Full Text and Legal Analysis
Florida Statute 409.913 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
F.S. 409.913 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 409.913

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XXX
SOCIAL WELFARE
Chapter 409
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
View Entire Chapter
409.913 Oversight of the integrity of the Medicaid program.The agency shall operate a program to oversee the activities of Florida Medicaid recipients, and providers and their representatives, to ensure that fraudulent and abusive behavior and neglect of recipients occur to the minimum extent possible, and to recover overpayments and impose sanctions as appropriate. Each January 15, the agency and the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Department of Legal Affairs shall submit a report to the Legislature documenting the effectiveness of the state’s efforts to control Medicaid fraud and abuse and to recover Medicaid overpayments during the previous fiscal year. The report must describe the number of cases opened and investigated each year; the sources of the cases opened; the disposition of the cases closed each year; the amount of overpayments alleged in preliminary and final audit letters; the number and amount of fines or penalties imposed; any reductions in overpayment amounts negotiated in settlement agreements or by other means; the amount of final agency determinations of overpayments; the amount deducted from federal claiming as a result of overpayments; the amount of overpayments recovered each year; the amount of cost of investigation recovered each year; the average length of time to collect from the time the case was opened until the overpayment is paid in full; the amount determined as uncollectible and the portion of the uncollectible amount subsequently reclaimed from the Federal Government; the number of providers, by type, that are terminated from participation in the Medicaid program as a result of fraud and abuse; and all costs associated with discovering and prosecuting cases of Medicaid overpayments and making recoveries in such cases. The report must also document actions taken to prevent overpayments and the number of providers prevented from enrolling in or reenrolling in the Medicaid program as a result of documented Medicaid fraud and abuse and must include policy recommendations necessary to prevent or recover overpayments and changes necessary to prevent and detect Medicaid fraud. All policy recommendations in the report must include a detailed fiscal analysis, including, but not limited to, implementation costs, estimated savings to the Medicaid program, and the return on investment. The agency must submit the policy recommendations and fiscal analyses in the report to the appropriate estimating conference, pursuant to s. 216.137, by February 15 of each year. The agency and the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Department of Legal Affairs each must include detailed unit-specific performance standards, benchmarks, and metrics in the report, including projected cost savings to the state Medicaid program during the following fiscal year.
(1) For the purposes of this section, the term:
(a) “Abuse” means:
1. Provider practices that are inconsistent with generally accepted business or medical practices and that result in an unnecessary cost to the Medicaid program or in reimbursement for goods or services that are not medically necessary or that fail to meet professionally recognized standards for health care.
2. Recipient practices that result in unnecessary cost to the Medicaid program.
(b) “Complaint” means an allegation that fraud, abuse, or an overpayment has occurred.
(c) “Fraud” means an intentional deception or misrepresentation made by a person with the knowledge that the deception results in unauthorized benefit to herself or himself or another person. The term includes any act that constitutes fraud under applicable federal or state law.
(d) “Medical necessity” or “medically necessary” means any goods or services necessary to palliate the effects of a terminal condition, or to prevent, diagnose, correct, cure, alleviate, or preclude deterioration of a condition that threatens life, causes pain or suffering, or results in illness or infirmity, which goods or services are provided in accordance with generally accepted standards of medical practice. For purposes of determining Medicaid reimbursement, the agency is the final arbiter of medical necessity. Determinations of medical necessity must be made by a licensed physician employed by or under contract with the agency, except for behavior analysis services, which may be determined by either a licensed physician or a doctoral-level board-certified behavior analyst. Determinations must be based upon information available at the time the goods or services are requested.
(e) “Overpayment” includes any amount that is not authorized to be paid by the Medicaid program whether paid as a result of inaccurate or improper cost reporting, improper claiming, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse, or mistake.
(f) “Person” means any natural person, corporation, partnership, association, clinic, group, or other entity, whether or not such person is enrolled in the Medicaid program or is a provider of health care.
(2) The agency shall conduct, or cause to be conducted by contract or otherwise, reviews, investigations, analyses, audits, or any combination thereof, to determine possible fraud, abuse, overpayment, or recipient neglect in the Medicaid program and shall report the findings of any overpayments in audit reports as appropriate. At least 5 percent of all audits shall be conducted on a random basis. As part of its ongoing fraud detection activities, the agency shall identify and monitor, by contract or otherwise, patterns of overutilization of Medicaid services based on state averages. The agency shall track Medicaid provider prescription and billing patterns and evaluate them against Medicaid medical necessity criteria and coverage and limitation guidelines adopted by rule. Medical necessity determination requires that service be consistent with symptoms or confirmed diagnosis of illness or injury under treatment and not in excess of the patient’s needs. The agency shall conduct reviews of provider exceptions to peer group norms and shall, using statistical methodologies, provider profiling, and analysis of billing patterns, detect and investigate abnormal or unusual increases in billing or payment of claims for Medicaid services and medically unnecessary provision of services.
(3) The agency may conduct, or may contract for, prepayment review of provider claims to ensure cost-effective purchasing; to ensure that billing by a provider to the agency is in accordance with applicable provisions of all Medicaid rules, regulations, handbooks, and policies and in accordance with federal, state, and local law; and to ensure that appropriate care is rendered to Medicaid recipients. Such prepayment reviews may be conducted as determined appropriate by the agency, without any suspicion or allegation of fraud, abuse, or neglect, and may last for up to 1 year. Unless the agency has reliable evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, abuse, or neglect, claims shall be adjudicated for denial or payment within 90 days after receipt of complete documentation by the agency for review. If there is reliable evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, abuse, or neglect, claims shall be adjudicated for denial of payment within 180 days after receipt of complete documentation by the agency for review.
(4) Any suspected criminal violation identified by the agency must be referred to the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Office of the Attorney General for investigation. The agency and the Attorney General shall enter into a memorandum of understanding, which must include, but need not be limited to, a protocol for regularly sharing information and coordinating casework. The protocol must establish a procedure for the referral by the agency of cases involving suspected Medicaid fraud to the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit for investigation, and the return to the agency of those cases where investigation determines that administrative action by the agency is appropriate. Offices of the Medicaid program integrity program and the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Department of Legal Affairs, shall, to the extent possible, be collocated. The agency and the Department of Legal Affairs shall periodically conduct joint training and other joint activities designed to increase communication and coordination in recovering overpayments.
(5) A Medicaid provider is subject to having goods and services that are paid for by the Medicaid program reviewed by an appropriate peer-review organization designated by the agency. The written findings of the applicable peer-review organization are admissible in any court or administrative proceeding as evidence of medical necessity or the lack thereof.
(6) Any notice required to be given to a provider under this section is presumed to be sufficient notice if sent to the address last shown on the provider enrollment file. It is the responsibility of the provider to furnish and keep the agency informed of the provider’s current address. United States Postal Service proof of mailing or certified or registered mailing of such notice to the provider at the address shown on the provider enrollment file constitutes sufficient proof of notice. Any notice required to be given to the agency by this section must be sent to the agency at an address designated by rule.
(7) When presenting a claim for payment under the Medicaid program, a provider has an affirmative duty to supervise the provision of, and be responsible for, goods and services claimed to have been provided, to supervise and be responsible for preparation and submission of the claim, and to present a claim that is true and accurate and that is for goods and services that:
(a) Have actually been furnished to the recipient by the provider prior to submitting the claim.
(b) Are Medicaid-covered goods or services that are medically necessary.
(c) Are of a quality comparable to those furnished to the general public by the provider’s peers.
(d) Have not been billed in whole or in part to a recipient or a recipient’s responsible party, except for such copayments, coinsurance, or deductibles as are authorized by the agency.
(e) Are provided in accord with applicable provisions of all Medicaid rules, regulations, handbooks, and policies and in accordance with federal, state, and local law.
(f) Are documented by records made at the time the goods or services were provided, demonstrating the medical necessity for the goods or services rendered. Medicaid goods or services are excessive or not medically necessary unless both the medical basis and the specific need for them are fully and properly documented in the recipient’s medical record.

The agency shall deny payment or require repayment for goods or services that are not presented as required in this subsection.

(8) The agency shall not reimburse any person or entity for any prescription for medications, medical supplies, or medical services if the prescription was written by a physician or other prescribing practitioner who is not enrolled in the Medicaid program. This section does not apply:
(a) In instances involving bona fide emergency medical conditions as determined by the agency;
(b) To a provider of medical services to a patient in a hospital emergency department, hospital inpatient or outpatient setting, or nursing home;
(c) To bona fide pro bono services by preapproved non-Medicaid providers as determined by the agency;
(d) To prescribing physicians who are board-certified specialists treating Medicaid recipients referred for treatment by a treating physician who is enrolled in the Medicaid program;
(e) To prescriptions written for dually eligible Medicare beneficiaries by an authorized Medicare provider who is not enrolled in the Medicaid program; or
(f) To other physicians who are not enrolled in the Medicaid program but who provide a medically necessary service or prescription not otherwise reasonably available from a Medicaid-enrolled physician.
(9) A Medicaid provider shall retain medical, professional, financial, and business records pertaining to services and goods furnished to a Medicaid recipient and billed to Medicaid for a period of 5 years after the date of furnishing such services or goods. The agency may investigate, review, or analyze such records, which must be made available during normal business hours. However, 24-hour notice must be provided if patient treatment would be disrupted. The provider must keep the agency informed of the location of the provider’s Medicaid-related records. The authority of the agency to obtain Medicaid-related records from a provider is neither curtailed nor limited during a period of litigation between the agency and the provider.
(10) Payments for the services of billing agents or persons participating in the preparation of a Medicaid claim shall not be based on amounts for which they bill nor based on the amount a provider receives from the Medicaid program.
(11) The agency shall deny payment or require repayment for inappropriate, medically unnecessary, or excessive goods or services from the person furnishing them, the person under whose supervision they were furnished, or the person causing them to be furnished.
(12) The complaint and all information obtained pursuant to an investigation of a Medicaid provider, or the authorized representative or agent of a provider, relating to an allegation of fraud, abuse, or neglect are confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1):
(a) Until the agency takes final agency action with respect to the provider and requires repayment of any overpayment, or imposes an administrative sanction;
(b) Until the Attorney General refers the case for criminal prosecution;
(c) Until 10 days after the complaint is determined without merit; or
(d) At all times if the complaint or information is otherwise protected by law.
(13) The agency shall terminate participation of a Medicaid provider in the Medicaid program and may seek civil remedies or impose other administrative sanctions against a Medicaid provider, if the provider or any principal, officer, director, agent, managing employee, or affiliated person of the provider, or any partner or shareholder having an ownership interest in the provider equal to 5 percent or greater, has been convicted of a criminal offense under federal law or the law of any state relating to the practice of the provider’s profession, or a criminal offense listed under s. 408.809(4), s. 409.907(10), or s. 435.04(2). If the agency determines that the provider did not participate or acquiesce in the offense, termination will not be imposed. If the agency effects a termination under this subsection, the agency shall take final agency action.
(14) If the provider has been suspended or terminated from participation in the Medicaid program or the Medicare program by the Federal Government or any state, the agency must immediately suspend or terminate, as appropriate, the provider’s participation in this state’s Medicaid program for a period no less than that imposed by the Federal Government or any other state, and may not enroll such provider in this state’s Medicaid program while such foreign suspension or termination remains in effect. The agency shall also immediately suspend or terminate, as appropriate, a provider’s participation in this state’s Medicaid program if the provider participated or acquiesced in any action for which any principal, officer, director, agent, managing employee, or affiliated person of the provider, or any partner or shareholder having an ownership interest in the provider equal to 5 percent or greater, was suspended or terminated from participating in the Medicaid program or the Medicare program by the Federal Government or any state. This sanction is in addition to all other remedies provided by law.
(15) The agency shall seek a remedy provided by law, including, but not limited to, any remedy provided in subsections (13) and (16) and s. 812.035, if:
(a) The provider’s license has not been renewed, or has been revoked, suspended, or terminated, for cause, by the licensing agency of any state;
(b) The provider has failed to make available or has refused access to Medicaid-related records to an auditor, investigator, or other authorized employee or agent of the agency, the Attorney General, a state attorney, or the Federal Government;
(c) The provider has not furnished or has failed to make available such Medicaid-related records as the agency has found necessary to determine whether Medicaid payments are or were due and the amounts thereof;
(d) The provider has failed to maintain medical records made at the time of service, or prior to service if prior authorization is required, demonstrating the necessity and appropriateness of the goods or services rendered;
(e) The provider is not in compliance with provisions of Medicaid provider publications that have been adopted by reference as rules in the Florida Administrative Code; with provisions of state or federal laws, rules, or regulations; with provisions of the provider agreement between the agency and the provider; or with certifications found on claim forms or on transmittal forms for electronically submitted claims that are submitted by the provider or authorized representative, as such provisions apply to the Medicaid program;
(f) The provider or person who ordered, authorized, or prescribed the care, services, or supplies has furnished, or ordered or authorized the furnishing of, goods or services to a recipient which are inappropriate, unnecessary, excessive, or harmful to the recipient or are of inferior quality;
(g) The provider has demonstrated a pattern of failure to provide goods or services that are medically necessary;
(h) The provider or an authorized representative of the provider, or a person who ordered, authorized, or prescribed the goods or services, has submitted or caused to be submitted false or a pattern of erroneous Medicaid claims;
(i) The provider or an authorized representative of the provider, or a person who has ordered, authorized, or prescribed the goods or services, has submitted or caused to be submitted a Medicaid provider enrollment application, a request for prior authorization for Medicaid services, a drug exception request, or a Medicaid cost report that contains materially false or incorrect information;
(j) The provider or an authorized representative of the provider has collected from or billed a recipient or a recipient’s responsible party improperly for amounts that should not have been so collected or billed by reason of the provider’s billing the Medicaid program for the same service;
(k) The provider or an authorized representative of the provider has included in a cost report costs that are not allowable under a Florida Title XIX reimbursement plan after the provider or authorized representative had been advised in an audit exit conference or audit report that the costs were not allowable;
(l) The provider is charged by information or indictment with fraudulent billing practices or an offense referenced in subsection (13). The sanction applied for this reason is limited to suspension of the provider’s participation in the Medicaid program for the duration of the indictment unless the provider is found guilty pursuant to the information or indictment;
(m) The provider or a person who ordered, authorized, or prescribed the goods or services is found liable for negligent practice resulting in death or injury to the provider’s patient;
(n) The provider fails to demonstrate that it had available during a specific audit or review period sufficient quantities of goods, or sufficient time in the case of services, to support the provider’s billings to the Medicaid program;
(o) The provider has failed to comply with the notice and reporting requirements of s. 409.907;
(p) The agency has received reliable information of patient abuse or neglect or of any act prohibited by s. 409.920; or
(q) The provider has failed to comply with an agreed-upon repayment schedule.

A provider is subject to sanctions for violations of this subsection as the result of actions or inactions of the provider, or actions or inactions of any principal, officer, director, agent, managing employee, or affiliated person of the provider, or any partner or shareholder having an ownership interest in the provider equal to 5 percent or greater, in which the provider participated or acquiesced.

(16) The agency shall impose any of the following sanctions or disincentives on a provider or a person for any of the acts described in subsection (15):
(a) Suspension for a specific period of time of not more than 1 year. Suspension precludes participation in the Medicaid program, which includes any action that results in a claim for payment to the Medicaid program for furnishing, supervising a person who is furnishing, or causing a person to furnish goods or services.
(b) Termination for a specific period of time ranging from more than 1 year to 20 years. Termination precludes participation in the Medicaid program, which includes any action that results in a claim for payment to the Medicaid program for furnishing, supervising a person who is furnishing, or causing a person to furnish goods or services.
(c) Imposition of a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation. Each day that an ongoing violation continues, such as refusing to furnish Medicaid-related records or refusing access to records, is considered a separate violation. Each instance of improper billing of a Medicaid recipient; each instance of including an unallowable cost on a hospital or nursing home Medicaid cost report after the provider or authorized representative has been advised in an audit exit conference or previous audit report of the cost unallowability; each instance of furnishing a Medicaid recipient goods or professional services that are inappropriate or of inferior quality as determined by competent peer judgment; each instance of knowingly submitting a materially false or erroneous Medicaid provider enrollment application, request for prior authorization for Medicaid services, drug exception request, or cost report; each instance of inappropriate prescribing of drugs for a Medicaid recipient as determined by competent peer judgment; and each false or erroneous Medicaid claim leading to an overpayment to a provider is considered a separate violation.
(d) Immediate suspension, if the agency has received information of patient abuse or neglect or of any act prohibited by s. 409.920. Upon suspension, the agency must issue an immediate final order under s. 120.569(2)(n).
(e) A fine, not to exceed $10,000, for a violation of paragraph (15)(i).
(f) Imposition of liens against provider assets, including, but not limited to, financial assets and real property, not to exceed the amount of fines or recoveries sought, upon entry of an order determining that such moneys are due or recoverable.
(g) Prepayment reviews of claims for a specified period of time.
(h) Comprehensive followup reviews of providers every 6 months to ensure that they are billing Medicaid correctly.
(i) Corrective action plans that remain in effect for up to 3 years and that are monitored by the agency every 6 months while in effect.
(j) Other remedies as permitted by law to effect the recovery of a fine or overpayment.

If a provider voluntarily relinquishes its Medicaid provider number or an associated license, or allows the associated licensure to expire after receiving written notice that the agency is conducting, or has conducted, an audit, survey, inspection, or investigation and that a sanction of suspension or termination will or would be imposed for noncompliance discovered as a result of the audit, survey, inspection, or investigation, the agency shall impose the sanction of termination for cause against the provider. The agency’s termination with cause is subject to hearing rights as may be provided under chapter 120. The Secretary of Health Care Administration may make a determination that imposition of a sanction or disincentive is not in the best interest of the Medicaid program, in which case a sanction or disincentive may not be imposed.

(17) In determining the appropriate administrative sanction to be applied, or the duration of any suspension or termination, the agency shall consider:
(a) The seriousness and extent of the violation or violations.
(b) Any prior history of violations by the provider relating to the delivery of health care programs which resulted in either a criminal conviction or in administrative sanction or penalty.
(c) Evidence of continued violation within the provider’s management control of Medicaid statutes, rules, regulations, or policies after written notification to the provider of improper practice or instance of violation.
(d) The effect, if any, on the quality of medical care provided to Medicaid recipients as a result of the acts of the provider.
(e) Any action by a licensing agency respecting the provider in any state in which the provider operates or has operated.
(f) The apparent impact on access by recipients to Medicaid services if the provider is suspended or terminated, in the best judgment of the agency.

The agency shall document the basis for all sanctioning actions and recommendations.

(18) The agency may take action to sanction, suspend, or terminate a particular provider working for a group provider, and may suspend or terminate Medicaid participation at a specific location, rather than or in addition to taking action against an entire group.
(19) The agency shall establish a process for conducting followup reviews of a sampling of providers who have a history of overpayment under the Medicaid program. This process must consider the magnitude of previous fraud or abuse and the potential effect of continued fraud or abuse on Medicaid costs.
(20) In making a determination of overpayment to a provider, the agency must use accepted and valid auditing, accounting, analytical, statistical, or peer-review methods, or combinations thereof. Appropriate statistical methods may include, but are not limited to, sampling and extension to the population, parametric and nonparametric statistics, tests of hypotheses, and other generally accepted statistical methods. Appropriate analytical methods may include, but are not limited to, reviews to determine variances between the quantities of products that a provider had on hand and available to be purveyed to Medicaid recipients during the review period and the quantities of the same products paid for by the Medicaid program for the same period, taking into appropriate consideration sales of the same products to non-Medicaid customers during the same period. In meeting its burden of proof in any administrative or court proceeding, the agency may introduce the results of such statistical methods as evidence of overpayment.
(21) When making a determination that an overpayment has occurred, the agency shall prepare and issue an audit report to the provider showing the calculation of overpayments. The agency’s determination must be based solely upon information available to it before issuance of the audit report and, in the case of documentation obtained to substantiate claims for Medicaid reimbursement, based solely upon contemporaneous records. The agency may consider addenda or modifications to a note that was made contemporaneously with the patient care episode if the addenda or modifications are germane to the note.
(22) The audit report, supported by agency work papers, showing an overpayment to a provider constitutes evidence of the overpayment. A provider may not present or elicit testimony on direct examination or cross-examination in any court or administrative proceeding, regarding the purchase or acquisition by any means of drugs, goods, or supplies; sales or divestment by any means of drugs, goods, or supplies; or inventory of drugs, goods, or supplies, unless such acquisition, sales, divestment, or inventory is documented by written invoices, written inventory records, or other competent written documentary evidence maintained in the normal course of the provider’s business. A provider may not present records to contest an overpayment or sanction unless such records are contemporaneous and, if requested during the audit process, were furnished to the agency or its agent upon request. This limitation does not apply to Medicaid cost report audits. This limitation does not preclude consideration by the agency of addenda or modifications to a note if the addenda or modifications are made before notification of the audit, the addenda or modifications are germane to the note, and the note was made contemporaneously with a patient care episode. Notwithstanding the applicable rules of discovery, all documentation to be offered as evidence at an administrative hearing on a Medicaid overpayment or an administrative sanction must be exchanged by all parties at least 14 days before the administrative hearing or be excluded from consideration.
(23)(a) In an audit, investigation, or enforcement action for a violation committed by a provider which is conducted or taken pursuant to this section, the agency or contractor is entitled to recover any and all investigative and legal costs incurred as a result of such audit, investigation, or enforcement action. Such costs may include, but are not limited to, salaries and benefits of personnel, costs related to the time spent by an attorney and other personnel working on the case, and any other expenses incurred by the agency or contractor that are associated with the case, including any expert witness costs and attorney fees incurred on behalf of the agency or contractor if the agency’s findings were not contested by the provider or, if contested, the agency ultimately prevailed.
(b) The agency has the burden of documenting the costs, which include salaries and employee benefits and out-of-pocket expenses. The amount of costs that may be recovered must be reasonable in relation to the seriousness of the violation and must be set taking into consideration the financial resources, earning ability, and needs of the provider, who has the burden of demonstrating such factors.
(c) The provider may pay the costs over a period to be determined by the agency if the agency determines that an extreme hardship would result to the provider from immediate full payment. Any default in payment of costs may be collected by any means authorized by law.
(24) If the agency imposes an administrative sanction pursuant to subsection (13), subsection (14), or subsection (15), except paragraphs (15)(e) and (o), upon any provider or any principal, officer, director, agent, managing employee, or affiliated person of the provider who is regulated by another state entity, the agency shall notify that other entity of the imposition of the sanction within 5 business days. Such notification must include the provider’s or person’s name and license number and the specific reasons for sanction.
(25)(a) The agency shall withhold Medicaid payments, in whole or in part, to a provider upon receipt of reliable evidence that the circumstances giving rise to the need for a withholding of payments involve fraud, willful misrepresentation, or abuse under the Medicaid program, or a crime committed while rendering goods or services to Medicaid recipients. If it is determined that fraud, willful misrepresentation, abuse, or a crime did not occur, the payments withheld must be paid to the provider within 14 days after such determination. Amounts not paid within 14 days accrue interest at the rate of 10 percent per year, beginning after the 14th day.
(b) The agency shall deny payment, or require repayment, if the goods or services were furnished, supervised, or caused to be furnished by a person who has been suspended or terminated from the Medicaid program or Medicare program by the Federal Government or any state.
(c) Overpayments owed to the agency bear interest at the rate of 10 percent per year from the date of final determination of the overpayment by the agency, and payment arrangements must be made within 30 days after the date of the final order, which is not subject to further appeal.
(d) The agency, upon entry of a final agency order, a judgment or order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or a stipulation or settlement, may collect the moneys owed by all means allowable by law, including, but not limited to, notifying any fiscal intermediary of Medicare benefits that the state has a superior right of payment. Upon receipt of such written notification, the Medicare fiscal intermediary shall remit to the state the sum claimed.
(e) The agency may institute amnesty programs to allow Medicaid providers the opportunity to voluntarily repay overpayments. The agency may adopt rules to administer such programs.
(26) The agency may impose administrative sanctions against a Medicaid recipient, or the agency may seek any other remedy provided by law, including, but not limited to, the remedies provided in s. 812.035, if the agency finds that a recipient has engaged in solicitation in violation of s. 409.920 or that the recipient has otherwise abused the Medicaid program.
(27) When the Agency for Health Care Administration has made a probable cause determination and alleged that an overpayment to a Medicaid provider has occurred, the agency, after notice to the provider, shall:
(a) Withhold, and continue to withhold during the pendency of an administrative hearing pursuant to chapter 120, any medical assistance reimbursement payments until such time as the overpayment is recovered, unless within 30 days after receiving notice thereof the provider:
1. Makes repayment in full; or
2. Establishes a repayment plan that is satisfactory to the Agency for Health Care Administration.
(b) Withhold, and continue to withhold during the pendency of an administrative hearing pursuant to chapter 120, medical assistance reimbursement payments if the terms of a repayment plan are not adhered to by the provider.
(28) Venue for all Medicaid program integrity cases lies in Leon County, at the discretion of the agency.
(29) Notwithstanding other provisions of law, the agency and the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Department of Legal Affairs may review a provider’s Medicaid-related and non-Medicaid-related records in order to determine the total output of a provider’s practice to reconcile quantities of goods or services billed to Medicaid with quantities of goods or services used in the provider’s total practice.
(30) The agency shall terminate a provider’s participation in the Medicaid program if the provider fails to reimburse an overpayment or pay an agency-imposed fine that has been determined by final order, not subject to further appeal, within 30 days after the date of the final order, unless the provider and the agency have entered into a repayment agreement.
(31) If a provider requests an administrative hearing pursuant to chapter 120, such hearing must be conducted within 90 days following assignment of an administrative law judge, absent exceptionally good cause shown as determined by the administrative law judge or hearing officer. Upon issuance of a final order, the outstanding balance of the amount determined to constitute the overpayment and fines is due. If a provider fails to make payments in full, fails to enter into a satisfactory repayment plan, or fails to comply with the terms of a repayment plan or settlement agreement, the agency shall withhold reimbursement payments for Medicaid services until the amount due is paid in full.
(32) Duly authorized agents and employees of the agency shall have the power to inspect, during normal business hours, the records of any pharmacy, wholesale establishment, or manufacturer, or any other place in which drugs and medical supplies are manufactured, packed, packaged, made, stored, sold, or kept for sale, for the purpose of verifying the amount of drugs and medical supplies ordered, delivered, or purchased by a provider. The agency shall provide at least 2 business days’ prior notice of any such inspection. The notice must identify the provider whose records will be inspected, and the inspection shall include only records specifically related to that provider.
(33) In accordance with federal law, Medicaid recipients convicted of a crime pursuant to 42 U.S.C. s. 1320a-7b may be limited, restricted, or suspended from Medicaid eligibility for a period not to exceed 1 year, as determined by the agency head or designee.
(34) To deter fraud and abuse in the Medicaid program, the agency may limit the number of Schedule II and Schedule III refill prescription claims submitted from a pharmacy provider. The agency shall limit the allowable amount of reimbursement of prescription refill claims for Schedule II and Schedule III pharmaceuticals if the agency or the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit determines that the specific prescription refill was not requested by the Medicaid recipient or authorized representative for whom the refill claim is submitted or was not prescribed by the recipient’s medical provider or physician. Any such refill request must be consistent with the original prescription.
(35) The Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability shall provide a report to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives on a biennial basis, beginning January 31, 2006, on the agency’s efforts to prevent, detect, and deter, as well as recover funds lost to, fraud and abuse in the Medicaid program.
(36) The agency may provide to a sample of Medicaid recipients or their representatives through the distribution of explanations of benefits information about services reimbursed by the Medicaid program for goods and services to such recipients, including information on how to report inappropriate or incorrect billing to the agency or other law enforcement entities for review or investigation, information on how to report criminal Medicaid fraud to the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit’s toll-free hotline number, and information about the rewards available under s. 409.9203. The explanation of benefits may not be mailed for Medicaid independent laboratory services as described in s. 409.905(7) or for Medicaid certified match services as described in ss. 409.9071 and 1011.70.
(37) The agency shall post on its website a current list of each Medicaid provider, including any principal, officer, director, agent, managing employee, or affiliated person of the provider, or any partner or shareholder having an ownership interest in the provider equal to 5 percent or greater, who has been terminated for cause from the Medicaid program or sanctioned under this section. The list must be searchable by a variety of search parameters and provide for the creation of formatted lists that may be printed or imported into other applications, including spreadsheets. The agency shall update the list at least monthly.
(38) In order to improve the detection of health care fraud, use technology to prevent and detect fraud, and maximize the electronic exchange of health care fraud information, the agency shall:
(a) Compile, maintain, and publish on its website a detailed list of all state and federal databases that contain health care fraud information and update the list at least biannually;
(b) Develop a strategic plan to connect all databases that contain health care fraud information to facilitate the electronic exchange of health information between the agency, the Department of Health, the Department of Law Enforcement, and the Attorney General’s Office. The plan must include recommended standard data formats, fraud identification strategies, and specifications for the technical interface between state and federal health care fraud databases;
(c) Monitor innovations in health information technology, specifically as it pertains to Medicaid fraud prevention and detection; and
(d) Periodically publish policy briefs that highlight available new technology to prevent or detect health care fraud and projects implemented by other states, the private sector, or the Federal Government which use technology to prevent or detect health care fraud.
History.s. 44, ch. 91-282; s. 5, ch. 94-251; s. 4, ch. 96-331; s. 4, ch. 96-387; s. 260, ch. 96-406; s. 195, ch. 96-410; s. 1025, ch. 97-103; s. 70, ch. 99-397; s. 61, ch. 2000-153; s. 12, ch. 2001-377; s. 30, ch. 2002-400; s. 6, ch. 2004-344; s. 7, ch. 2005-133; s. 13, ch. 2006-2; s. 14, ch. 2008-143; s. 18, ch. 2009-223; s. 3, ch. 2013-150; s. 210, ch. 2014-19; s. 14, ch. 2017-129; s. 55, ch. 2018-110; s. 42, ch. 2020-156; s. 6, ch. 2021-151.

F.S. 409.913 on Google Scholar

F.S. 409.913 on CourtListener

Amendments to 409.913


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 409.913

Total Results: 25  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Florida Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Bayou Shores SNF, LLC (In Re Bayou Shores SNF, LLC), 828 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2016).

Cited 7 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12727, 2016 WL 3675462

...alize” the termination of their Medicaid provider agreement, Bayou Shores does not appear to dispute that such termination will be the end result of the termination of the Medicare provider agreement. See e.g. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(39); Fla. Stat. § 409.913(14); see also Livingston Care Ctr., Inc....
Copy

AHCA v. Custom Mobility, Inc., 995 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 4067312

...e case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. AHCA is the state agency responsible for administering Florida's Medicaid program, for auditing Medicaid providers, and for recouping overpayments made to Medicaid providers. §§ 409.902, 409.913, Fla....
...or combinations thereof. Appropriate statistical methods may include, but are not limited to, sampling and extension to the population, parametric and nonparametric statistics, tests of hypotheses, and other generally accepted statistical methods." § 409.913(20), Fla....
...Finally, the cluster sampling formula at issue here does not implement, interpret, *987 or prescribe law or policy. The formula does not create any rights or adversely affect others, because it does not itself establish that the service provider owes money; per section 409.913(20), Florida Statutes (2007), "the agency may introduce the results of such statistical methods as evidence of overpayment" (emphasis added). Section 409.913(21), Florida Statutes (2007), provides that, "[w]hen making a determination that an overpayment has occurred, the agency shall prepare and issue an audit report [FAR] to the provider showing the calculation of the overpayments." Thus,...
Copy

Diaz v. State, Agency for Health Care Admin., 65 So. 3d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8929, 2011 WL 2507287

...f a Provider Agreement be heard in an alternative forum. The Diaz appellants argue that because the Legislature has authorized a series of administrative sanctions applicable to providers who commit specific fraudulent or abusive acts, see generally § 409.913, Fla....
...0 administrative hearings in the context of Medicaid overpayment disputes), a dispute over the termination of a Provider Agreement without cause must, in the name of fundamental fairness, be settled administratively. We disagree. By its own wording, section 409.913 exists “to ensure that fraudulent and abusive behavior and neglect of recipients occur to the minimum extent possible, and to recover overpayments and impose sanctions as appropriate.” Id....
Copy

State v. Murciano, 163 So. 3d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 6293, 2015 WL 1928555

...pursuant to section 120.68(1), Florida Statutes, and grant it. I. FACTS Respondent, a physician, is a Medicaid provider. Under the Medicaid statutory framework, Medicaid providers file claims with AHCA to receive payment for services. rendered. See § 409.913(7), Fla....
...Following the hearing, the ALJ issued a Recommended Order dismissing the Final Audit Report because the ALJ concluded as a matter of law that the doctor who conducted the peer review of respondent’s claims, Dr. O’Hern, was not respondent’s “peer” as defined by section 409.9131(2)(e), Florida Statutes....
...*664 Upon receiving the Recommended Order, AHCA issued an order remanding the matter to the ALJ for additional factual findings, citing “exceptional circumstances.” AHCA found the ALJ should have deferred to AHCA’s reasonable interpretation of section 409.9131(2)(c), under which Dr....
...eed to be made by a peer reviewer. The ALJ entered an order declining remand. In response, AHCA entered a Partial Final Order and again remanded for factual findings. AHCA concluded as a matter of law that Dr. O’Hern was a “peer” as defined by section 409.9131(2)(c). Thus, AHCA remanded to the ALJ “to make factual findings regarding all the claims at issue in this matter with the understanding that Dr. O’Hern is a ‘peer’ of respondent as defined by Section 409.9131(2)(c), Florida Statutes.” The ALJ entered an order again declining remand....
Copy

Espinal v. State, Agency for Health Care Admin., 1 So. 3d 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 344, 2009 WL 128272

...(2006). The term “overpayment” includes “any amount that is not authorized to be paid by the Medicaid program whether paid as a result of inaccurate or improper cost reporting, improper claiming, unacceptable practices ... or mistake.” See § 409.913(l)(e). Furthermore, under section 409.913, the agency has discretionary authority regarding mitigation....
Copy

Colonnade Med. Ctr., Inc. v. State, Agency for Health Care Admin., 847 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 5689, 2003 WL 1917293

...The AHCA sent Colonnade an audit report indicating it had determined that the amount constituted overpayment and ordered repayment of same. After a formal administrative hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) held that the payments at issue constitute “overpayments” as defined by section 409.913(l)(d), Florida Statutes. The ALJ construed section 409.913(14) as conferring upon the AHCA the authority to demand a repayment of an overpayment....
...The AHCA issued a final order and adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the recommended order and ordered Colonnade to remit $49,965.30 in Medicaid overpayments to the AHCA. Colonnade asserts that the AHCA’s interpretation of section 409.913 is erroneous. We conclude that the plain meaning of the statute dictates that it is within the AHCA’s power to demand repayment. Section 409.913, Florida Statutes, charges the AHCA with oversight of the integrity of the Medicaid program. Further, section 409.913(14) prorides that: [t]he agency may seek any remedy provided by law, including but not limited *542 to, the remedies provided in subsections (12) and (15) and s....
...Under the statute, the AHCA could seek “any remedy provided by law.” Recovery of the overpayment falls within the parameter of “any remedy provided by law.” Such a construction is consistent with the charge made in the opening paragraph of section 409.913 in which the AHCA is to “operate a program to oversee the activities of Florida Medicaid recipients, and providers and their representatives, to ensure that fraudulent and abusive behavior and neglect of recipients occur to the minimum extent possible, and to recover overpayments and impose sanctions as appropriate.” § 409.913, Fla....
Copy

Medicaid, Prog. Integrity, Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Conval-Care, Inc., 636 So. 2d 117 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994).

Cited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3543, 1994 WL 133528

seeks substantial damages for these breaches, section 409.913(8)(h) provides for administrative sanctions
Copy

Zen Grp., Inc. v. State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administra (11th Cir. 2023).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Argued: May 18, 2023

...formal hearing to challenge both the overpayment and fine determinations in the audit before they are final. See generally 42 U.S.C. § 1396b (setting forth, inter alia, requirements of state Medicaid fraud units); Fla. Stat. § 409.913 (explaining Florida’s oversight of Medicaid providers and its interim recoupment authority after a “probable cause determination” and pending administrative review, and its ability to collect the money...
...In compliance with that requirement, Florida promulgated laws authorizing the Agency to audit, verify, and withhold payment for claims submitted by Medicaid providers pending a final administrative determination. See Fla. Stat. § 409.913. Accordingly, if the state Agency’s audit makes “a probable cause determination” that a Medicaid provider was fraudulently overpaid in the past and owes a related fine, the Agency can withhold that money and related fine from current, legitimate payments owed to the same provider. 42 C.F.R. § 455.23; Fla. St. § 409.913(27)....
...nd a $2,500 fine for a first records violation). 5 In addition to instructing Zen Group to remit these amounts, the Report notified Zen Group that the Agency may collect money owed (1) pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 409.913(25)(d) by from an independent source such as state law rules’....
...9/13/2023 Page: 38 of 43 10 HULL, J., Concurring in part and Dissenting in part 22-10319 exercising the option to collect money from Medicare that is payable to the provider and (2) pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 409.913(27) by withholding Medicaid reimbursements to the provider during the pendency of an administrative hearing. The Report also clarified that “all information obtained pursuant to this [audit] review...
...Florida state law permits the Agency to withhold Medicaid reimbursement payments from Zen Group, a provider, if the Agency makes a probable cause determination that overpayment occurred. See § 409.913(27)(a), Fla....
Copy

Zen Grp., Inc. v. State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administra (11th Cir. 2023).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Argued: May 18, 2023

...formal hearing to challenge both the overpayment and fine determinations in the audit before they are final. See generally 42 U.S.C. § 1396b (setting forth, inter alia, requirements of state Medicaid fraud units); Fla. Stat. § 409.913 (explaining Florida’s oversight of Medicaid providers and its interim recoupment authority after a “probable cause determination” and pending administrative review, and its ability to collect the money...
...In compliance with that requirement, Florida promulgated laws authorizing the Agency to audit, verify, and withhold payment for claims submitted by Medicaid providers pending a final administrative determination. See Fla. Stat. § 409.913. Accordingly, if the state Agency’s audit makes “a probable cause determination” that a Medicaid provider was fraudulently overpaid in the past and owes a related fine, the Agency can withhold that money and related fine from current, legitimate payments owed to the same provider. 42 C.F.R. § 455.23; Fla. St. § 409.913(27)....
...nd a $2,500 fine for a first records violation). 5 In addition to instructing Zen Group to remit these amounts, the Report notified Zen Group that the Agency may collect money owed (1) pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 409.913(25)(d) by from an independent source such as state law rules’....
...9/13/2023 Page: 38 of 43 10 HULL, J., Concurring in part and Dissenting in part 22-10319 exercising the option to collect money from Medicare that is payable to the provider and (2) pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 409.913(27) by withholding Medicaid reimbursements to the provider during the pendency of an administrative hearing. The Report also clarified that “all information obtained pursuant to this [audit] review...
...Florida state law permits the Agency to withhold Medicaid reimbursement payments from Zen Group, a provider, if the Agency makes a probable cause determination that overpayment occurred. See § 409.913(27)(a), Fla....
Copy

State, Agency for Health Care Admin. v. PCA Fam. Health Plan, Inc., 695 So. 2d 737 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 10318, 1996 WL 511529

...n 641.515(2), Florida Statutes (1993), to determine the meaning of the words “any identifying information”, and determine whether the confidentiality exemption of section 641.515(2) extends to the investigation of a Medicaid provider pursuant to section 409.913(7)(d)....
...This exemption is subject to the Open Government Sunset Review Act in accordance with s. 119.14. This section does not differentiate between an individual and an HMO. *739 The trial court should have extended the confidentiality exemption of section 641.515(2) to the investigation of an HMO according to section 409.913(7)(d), which reads: The complaint and all information obtained pursuant to an investigation of a Medicaid provider, or the authorized representative or agent of a provider, relating to an allegation of fraud, abuse, or neglect are confidential and exempt from the provisions of s....
Copy

Q.H. c/o Amy Hill v. Sunshine State Health Plan, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida

“the final arbiter of medical necessity.” See § 409.913(1)(d), Fla. Stat. (2019). As long as the limitations
Copy

Q.H. c/o Amy Hill v. Sunshine State Health Plan, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida

“the final arbiter of medical necessity.” See § 409.913(1)(d), Fla. Stat. (2019). As long as the limitations
Copy

Q.H. c/o Amy Hill v. Sunshine State Health Plan, Inc. (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal

...See generally §§ 409.902, 409.908, and 409.963, Fla. Stat. (2019). In addition, the Legislature charged the AHCA with oversight responsibility over the Florida Medicaid program and designated it as “the final arbiter of medical necessity.” See § 409.913(1)(d), Fla....
...§ 440.230(d), the AHCA has authority to adopt a definition of medical necessity that places appropriate limitations on covered services based on medical necessity criteria or other utilization control procedures. And because the Legislature has designated the AHCA as “the final arbiter of medical necessity” in section 409.913, our review should be limited to whether competent substantial evidence supports the AHCA’s lawful and reasonable application of its authorization criteria. Undoubtedly, competent substantial evidence supports the AHCA’s decision...
Copy

Yusmary Garcia Riveron v. State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Admin. (Fla. 3d DCA 2022).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal

...MILLER, J. Before us for review is a final order of the Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) terminating appellant, Yusmary Garcia Riveron, with cause, from participation in the Florida Medicaid Program. The order cites section 409.913, Florida Statutes (2021), which permits AHCA to terminate Medicaid participation upon information the provider is not in compliance with specified regulatory provisions....
Copy

Dr. Varinia F. Cabrera v. State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Admin. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida

per month, which the Agency rejected. Section 409.913(30), Florida Statutes, provides: “The agency
Copy

North Broward Hosp. Dist., Mount Sinai Med. Ctr. of Florida, Inc., & Naples Cmty. Hosp., Inc., on Behalf of Themselves & All Others Similarly Situated v. State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Admin. (Fla. 1st DCA 2024).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

...Statutes The relevant statutes are part of Florida’s Social Welfare Act, chapter 409 of the Florida Statutes. In pertinent part, the Act implements obligations imposed on Florida by Title XIX of the federal Social Security Act, including the healthcare obligations at issue here. Portions of sections 409.905 and 409.913, Florida Statutes, are controlling. (A) 2019 Version of Section 409.905(5)(a) In 2019, when we issued Gulf Coast, section 409.905(5)(a) provided in pertinent part as follows: (a) The agency may implement reimburse...
...zation program for hospital inpatient services, the agency shall discontinue its hospital retrospective review program. However, this subparagraph may not be construed to prevent the agency from conducting retrospective reviews under s. 409.913, including, but not limited to, reviews in which an overpayment is suspected due to a mistake or submission of an improper claim or for other reasons that do not rise to the level of fraud or abuse. § 409.905(5)(a)4., Fla....
...(2020) (emphasis added). The bill affecting this 2020 amendment states that the amended statute “confirms and clarifies existing law.” Ch. 2020- 156, §§ 38–39, Laws of Fla. No reference is made to legislatively overruling Gulf Coast. 3 (C) Section 409.913 Also relevant to this analysis is section 409.913(1)(e), which the legislature did not amend after Gulf Coast....
...(e) “Overpayment” includes any amount that is not authorized to be paid by the Medicaid program whether paid as a result of inaccurate or improper cost reporting, improper claiming, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse, or mistake. Section 409.913 includes multiple additional provisions for recouping overpayments, which again were not changed in 2020 (or thereafter). See §§ 409.913(11), (15)(i), (16)(c), (16)(j), (20), (25)(c), (27), Fla....
...tent with Gulf Coast and does not abrogate it. NBH advanced three arguments. First, section 409.905(5)(a) still precludes the Agency from conducting general retrospective reviews of previously authorized claims. Second, the legislature did not amend section 409.913 to give the Agency new authority to conduct general retrospective reviews of previously authorized claims, but rather clarified that section 409.905(5)(a) did not limit the Agency’s existing authority under section 409.913....
...Id. 5 The Agency, on the other hand, argued that the 2020 amendment abrogated Gulf Coast, and that the amended statute allows general retrospective audits to address “overpayment” even for pre-authorized services and on grounds not covered by the repayment provisions in section 409.913....
...In the order on appeal, the trial court agreed with the Agency, concluding that the legislature amended section 409.905(5)(a) to abrogate Gulf Coast. The trial court concluded that the statutory amendment was intended to clarify that retrospective reviews under section 409.913 were not limited to instances where fraud or abuse was suspected....
...ying legislation; and (3) the legislative history, which was “consistent with the plain language of the amended statute and confirm[ed] that Section 409.905(5)(a) shall not operate to bar [the Agency] ‘from conducting retrospectives review under s. 409.913,’ including the Audit Program.” But, as will be explained, this premise is fundamentally incorrect....
...Upon implementing the prior authorization program for hospital inpatient services, the agency shall discontinue its hospital retrospective review program. However, this subparagraph may not be construed to prevent the agency from conducting retrospective reviews under s. 409.913, including, but not limited to, reviews in which an overpayment is suspected due to a mistake or submission of an improper claim or for other reasons that do not rise to the level of fraud or abuse. § 409.905(5)(a)1., 4., Fla. Stat. (2020) (emphasis added). The legislature itself explained that the emphasized sentence was added to “confirm[] and clarif[y] existing law.” Ch. 2020-156, §§ 38– 39, Laws of Fla. Notably, section 409.913 remained untouched in the 2020 amendment. At no time before or after the 2020 amendment has section 409.913 authorized the Agency to conduct carte blanche general retrospective audits of any claims, let alone pre-authorized claims. Section 409.913 imposes prerequisites on the Agency’s retrospective audit authority. In Gulf Coast, we made clear that while section 409.913 does allow retrospective audits, it is only under listed circumstances; i.e., claims not previously reviewed (not a pre-authorized claim) where fraudulent acts are suspected, among other reasons....
...review, [and] the ALJ’s interpretation leaves intact the Agency’s authority to conduct retrospective reviews for all other matters, including reviews of prior authorized claims to determine if the claim for prior authorization was materially false. § 409.913(15)(i), (16)(c), Fla....
...raud or abuse. It did not abrogate Gulf Coast. The amendment incorporated the holding of Gulf Coast into section 409.905. That is, while the Agency has general authority to conduct retrospective reviews for suspected overpayments as authorized under section 409.913, once the Agency has pre-approved claims, it loses authority to review specifically for fraud or abuse, by operation of section 409.913(1)(e). Although the language of the amended statute is clear and unambiguous, the trial court improperly resorted to rules of statutory interpretation and failed to give effect to each word in the amended statute....
...1st DCA 2008) (“[C]ourts should avoid interpretations that would render part of a statute meaningless.”); Fla. Dep’t of Educ. v. Cooper, 858 So. 2d 394, 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Similarly, the trial court’s interpretation also renders meaningless the limitations in section 409.913 as to the Agency’s retrospectively reviewing previously authorized claims if it suspects fraud or abuse. Again, it may do so under section 409.913, if materially false information is submitted to acquire a prior authorization. See § 409.913(15)(i), Fla....
...Zold, 911 So. 2d 1222, 1229–30 (Fla. 2005). In effect, the trial court’s interpretation of the amended statute renders meaningless the intentional limitations on the Agency’s authority to conduct retrospective reviews under sections 409.905(5)(a) and 409.913. The Agency concedes that the statutory limitations regarding its retrospective-audit authority remain, and that the amended statute clarifies that per section 409.913, it may conduct retrospective reviews on non-pre-authorized claims “in which an overpayment is suspected . . . for other reasons that do not rise to the level of fraud or abuse.” Where the Agency and the trial court are incorrect is the scope of the Agency’s authority under section 409.913 and, more specifically, whether previously authorized claims meet the definition of “overpayment.” Gulf Coast held they did not....
...ss fraud and abuse are suspected. Gulf Coast determined that the Agency’s authority to conduct retrospective reviews of previously authorized claims (i.e., claims that do not meet the statutory definition of “overpayment”) was limited by section 409.913 and did not allow such reviews for suspected fraud or abuse. However, it did not constrain the Agency’s authority to review claims that meet the definition of “overpayment” (i.e., claims that have not been previously authorized) or fell under other provisions, not relevant here. i.e. section 409.913(15)(i). We agree with NBH that the Agency’s misstatement of the holding in Gulf Coast “is the faulty premise underlying [the Agency’s] arguments and the Circuit Court’s decision.” Specifically, section 409.913, as it existed when Gulf Coast was written, and as it exists now, gives AHCA authority to conduct 11 reviews only to “determine possible fraud, abuse, overpayment, or recipient neglect in the Medicaid program . . . .” § 409.913(2), Fla. Stat....
...After conceding that the statutory prohibition remains, the Agency further acknowledges that the amended statute clarifies that the Agency may conduct retrospective reviews “in which an overpayment is suspected . . . for other reasons that do not rise to the level of fraud or abuse” under section 409.913. Absent from the trial court’s analysis is that “overpayment” is statutorily defined as “any amount that is not authorized to be paid by the Medicaid program whether paid as a result of inaccurate or improper cost reporting, improper claiming, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse, or mistake.” § 409.913(1)(e), Fla....
...court’s conclusion failed to respect the statutory definition of “overpayment.” Previously authorized claims cannot be overpayments, as a matter of law. The trial court’s interpretation improperly creates Agency authority that is absent from section 409.913. Had the legislature intended the amended statute to apply to previously authorized claims, it could and would have done so clearly and with ease....
... ambiguity in the Gulf Coast decision regarding the Agency’s right to conduct retrospective review of claims that “were not previously reviewed,” the plain and unambiguous language of the amended statute clarified that the Agency has the authority under section 409.913 to do so for reasons that do not rise to fraud or abuse....
...program whether paid as a result of inaccurate or improper cost reporting, improper claiming, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse, or mistake,” the legislature was clearly not expanding the Agency’s authority, but rather reiterating its limits. § 409.913(1)(e), Fla. Stat....
...It concluded that section 409.905(5)(a)(4), as amended, bars the Agency from conducting a general retrospective review program for previously authorized claims, but that under section 409.13, the general authority to do so is given back. This interpretation is inconsistent with section 409.913(2), which sets out the Agency’s general authority to conduct reviews to “determine possible fraud, abuse, overpayment, or recipient neglect in the Medicaid program ....
...obtained under false pretenses.” Notably, this statement is incorrect. In Gulf Coast, we held that section 409.905(5)(a) only precluded general retrospective audits to determine the appropriateness of reimbursement for pre-authorized hospital inpatient services, and that section 409.913 allowed retrospective audits where prior authorization was obtained under false pretenses....
Copy

Florida Hosp. Orlando v. State of Florida, Agency For Health Care etc., 149 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

...Orlando’s (“Hospital”) inpatient services claims. As a result of the audit, the Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) determined it had reimbursed the Hospital for services submitted to Medicaid which were not “medically necessary.” See § 409.913(1)(d), Fla....
...give greater and better information than was available to the Hospital’s doctors when they made the real-time decisions to admit their patients to the hospital. The Hospital is correct about how “medical necessity” must be determined for purposes of section 409.913(1)(d). The statute is perfectly clear that “[d]eterminations of medical necessity . . . must be based upon information available at the time the goods or services are provided.” § 409.913(1)(d), Fla. Stat....
Copy

State of Florida, Agency For Health Care Admin. v. Alfred Ivan Murciano, M.D. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida

concluding that Dr. Jenkins was a “peer” under section 409.913(2), Florida Statutes, and again remanded to
Copy

Angela Ruckh v. Salus Rehab., LLC (11th Cir. 2020).

Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

the goods or services rendered.” Fla. Stat. § 409.913(7)(f). “Medicaid goods or services are excessive
Copy

Rehab. Ctr. at Hollywood Hills, LLC v. State of Florida, Agency for Health etc., 250 So. 3d 737 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal

residents. As authority, the order cited section 409.913, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Administrative
Copy

Inst. of Cardiovascular Excellence, PLLC v. Fla. Agency for Health Care Admin. (In re Inst. of Cardiovascular Excellence, PLLC), 589 B.R. 204 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2018).

Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida

...AHCA also asserts two factual arguments going to the merits of Debtor's claims. First, AHCA contends that, in 2015, a medical doctor associated with Debtor came under investigation for Medicaid *208 fraud. At the time, AHCA determined it had "reliable evidence" to warrant withholding Medicaid payments to Debtor pursuant to section 409.913(25)(a), Florida Statutes, and 42 C.F.R....
...On the other hand, AHCA contends the money was forfeited due to a settlement agreement reached in a related Medicaid fraud investigation (i.e., an agreement extraneous to the Provider Agreement) and further contends the money was lawfully withheld, at least at first, pursuant to section 409.913(25)(a), Florida Statutes, and 42 C.F.R. § 455.23 . The Court notes that both section 409.913(25)(a) and 42 C.F.R....
Copy

Lee Mem'l Health Sys. etc. v. State of Florida, Agency For Agency For Health etc., 272 So. 3d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

...The latter method is routinely referred to as the “pay and chase” method in which the Agency reviews claims after payment using “peer reviews” by medical professionals to determine whether the services provided were medically necessary and otherwise permitted by Medicaid. §§ 409.913(1)(d)-(e), (2), (5), (7); 409.9131(2)(b), (2)(d), Fla. Stat. As a result of this pay and chase option, medical providers must maintain records for a period of five years for the Agency to audit for overpayment and seek reimbursement from medical providers. § 409.913(9), Fla....
...Here, the plain reading of the statute makes clear that the Agency is barred from conducting general retrospective reviews of claims, which the Project commanded. 5 We find no ambiguity in the prohibition on retrospective review in section 409.905(5)(a). B. Section 409.913, Florida Statutes, Does not Provide the Agency Authority to Conduct General Retrospective Reviews. The Agency also argues on appeal it had authority to conduct the retrospective audit pursuant to section 409.913. 6 The Agency interprets section 409.913 as requiring it to seek reimbursement of any overpayment to providers, and this can only be accomplished via retrospective audits. However, overpayment is defined as “any amount not authorized to be paid by the Medicaid program, whether paid as a result of inaccurate or improper cost reporting, improper claiming, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse or mistake.” § 409.913(1)(e), Fla....
...ondition. However, the Agency must accept DCF’s finding that the recipient’s condition was an emergency medical condition, as well as all other findings in support of eligibility, including the duration of the emergency medical condition. 6 Section 409.913 provides in pertinent part: “The Agency shall operate a program to oversee the activities of Florida Medicaid recipients, and providers and their representatives, to ensure that fraudulent and abusive behavior and neglect of recipients occur to the minimum extent possible, and to recover overpayments and impose sanctions as appropriate.” Section 409.913, Fla. Stat. 11 review or repetitive audits are allowable under 409.913. While we agree section 409.913 does allow retrospective audits, it is only in the context of claims not previously reviewed and where fraudulent acts are suspected. Although we recognize section 409.913 provides the Agency the authority to audit claims under certain circumstances, it does not provide the Agency the authority to implement a sweeping retrospective review plan inclusive of hospital inpatient services to undocumented aliens. See Diaz v. State of Fla., Agency for Health Care Admin., 65 So. 3d 78, 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that to further the objectives of 409.913 the Legislature requires agencies to respond when a provider engages in fraudulent or abusive practices). We do not address what factors trigger an audit under section 409.913 as that is not necessary for our analysis or conclusion given no allegations of fraud or abuse were raised....
...on review, the ALJ’s interpretation leaves intact the Agency’s authority to conduct retrospective reviews for all other matters, including reviews of prior authorized claims to determine if the claim for prior authorization was materially false. § 409.913(15)(i), (16)(c), 7The Agency did not argue the audit was conducted on a random basis pursuant to section 409.913(2), Florida Statutes. 12 Fla....
...quasi-judicial administrative proceeding. The case is similar to Horta, in that an overpayment of federal funds was alleged, and the recovering entity sought recovery of the overpayment. Further, applying a statute of limitations to review of claims allowed under section 409.913 would be inequitable....
...In the instant case, the statute of limitations never actually began running because the last element and the initiation of the action occurred simultaneously. IV. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the Agency erroneously relied upon section 409.913 as providing it authority to conduct general retrospective reviews of claims for emergency in-patient services provided to undocumented aliens that had previously been authorized and paid....
Copy

Agency for Health Care Admin. v. South Broward Hosp. Dist., 206 So. 3d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 18501

...of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting Respondents’ motions to unseal files relevant to two Medicaid provider overpayment complaints filed against them by AHCA and rejecting AHCA’s argument that the files should remain sealed under section 409.913(12), Florida Statutes (2015)....
...Innovative Flooring & Stonecrafters of SWF, Inc., 932 So.2d 221, 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“Because Royal Marble has failed to allege irreparable harm, we dismiss the petition”). Therefore, the petition for review of non-final agency action is DISMISSED. LEWIS, J., CONCURS; WETHERELL, J., CONCURS WITH OPINION. . Section 409.913(12) provides in pertinent part as follows: "The complaint and all information obtained pursuant to an investigation of a Medicaid provider ......
Copy

Conval Care, Inc. v. State, 647 So. 2d 300 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12195, 1994 WL 697946

BOOTH, Judge. This cause is before us on appeal from an order of the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) imposing a $5,000 fine against Conval Care, Inc. (CCI) for failure to produce Medicaid provider records pursuant to section 409.913, Florida Statutes (1991)....
...The company refused to provide the documents, maintaining that any request for such documents should be done through appropriate *301 discovery pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. In response, HRS imposed sanctions on CCI’s noncompliance pursuant to section 409.913, Florida Statutes (1991)....
...2 Accordingly, the hearing officer recommended that the sanctions against CCI be dismissed. By final order dated September 19, 1993, AHCA left the hearing officer’s findings of fact undisturbed, but concluded as a matter of law that AHCA may sanction failure to furnish Medicaid records under section 409.913, Florida Statutes (1991), even when the agency has a formal termination and recoupment proceeding pending against the same provider. We hold that AHCA erred. Where the agency has a legitimate investigatory purpose for obtaining Medicaid documents from a provider, section 409.913 clearly authorizes the agency to demand the records and to sanction a provider for failure to produce them....
Copy

Murciano v. State, Agency for Health Care Admin., 208 So. 3d 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13176

...Murciano”) appeals an amended order of the Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), requiring him to repay AHCA $1,265,741.45 for Medicaid overpayments, following a peer review audit. We affirm, and hold, on the central issue raised, that AHCA correctly construed the statutory definition of “peer” under section 409.9131(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2013). BACKGROUND Dr....
...13). AHCA referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”), which was assigned to Administrative Law Judge Todd P. Resavage (“the ALJ”). The formal hearing took place on January 21, 2014, and May 22, 2014. 1 Under section 409.9131(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2013), in determining that a Medicaid overpayment has been made to a physician, AHCA must “[r]efer all physician service claims for peer review when the agency’s preliminary analysis indicates that an evaluation of the medical necessity, appropriateness, and quality of care needs to be undertaken to determine a potential overpayment, and before any formal proceedings are initiated against the physician, except as required by s. 409.913.” Pursuant to section 409.9131(2)(b), a “peer” is defined as follows: “Peer” means a Florida licensed physician who is, to the maximum extent possible, of the same specialty or subspecialty, licensed under the same chapter, and in active...
...O’Hern) who did not meet the statutory definition of “peer” as required by Florida law for a determination of overpayment, and that therefore, AHCA’s case must be dismissed. AHCA filed timely exceptions to the ALJ’s Recommended Order, asserting that Dr. O’Hern was a peer of Dr. Murciano as defined by section 409.9131 and further, that the ALJ was required to defer to AHCA’s interpretation of the term “peer” as this was a conclusion of law....
...o DOAH for a de novo hearing. Thereafter, AHCA’s agency clerk remanded the matter back to the ALJ, finding the ALJ departed from the essential requirements of the law by concluding Dr. O’Hern did not meet the definition of a peer under section 409.9131; by failing to give deference to AHCA’s interpretation of the statute; and by failing to make 4 specific factual findings on the claims at issue....
...1D14-3836), asserting there were exceptional circumstances for AHCA’s remand because the ALJ refused to make necessary factual findings based solely on his erroneous conclusion that Dr. O’Hern did not meet the definition of “peer” under section 409.9131(2)(c)....
...ngs of Fact” rather than under “Conclusions of Law,” where it had been located in its previous order), and accordingly, the ALJ found that an appropriate peer review was not conducted before formal proceedings were initiated, as required by section 409.9131(5)(b). However, recognizing the directives set forth in the First District’s opinion, the ALJ nevertheless made findings of fact as to the claims of overpayment....
...and the ALJ’s other factual findings, this court should affirm the Amended Final Order. ANALYSIS The central question raised by this appeal is whether AHCA erred in determining that Dr. O’Hern met the statutory requirements of a “peer” under section 409.9131(2)(b)....
...application of that statute to the undisputed facts, all that remains is the legal determination of whether, under the statute and these undisputed facts, Dr. O’Hern is, “to the maximum extent possible, of the same specialty or subspecialty.” As stated above, section 409.9131(2)(b) defines a “peer” as follows: “Peer” means a Florida licensed physician who is, to the maximum extent possible, of the same specialty or subspecialty, licensed under the same chapter, and in active practice. Dr....
...ve, and normally indicates that alternatives were intended. Sparkman v. McClure, 498 So. 2d 892, 895 (Fla. 1986); Piper Aircraft Corp. v. Schwendemann, 564 So. 2d 546, 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Applying this general rule to the plain language of section 409.9131(2)(b), we hold that Dr....
...Further, the statutory language “to the maximum extent possible” provides some deference to AHCA to implement its peer review process and exercise its discretion, given that it must select its peer reviewer from a finite list of medical professionals who contract with AHCA to perform peer reviews. See § 409.9131(5)(b), Fla....