ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division pursuant to the appeal of
Bayview Nursing Center, Inc. ("Bayview") from a decision of the South Carolina Department of
Health and Human Services ("DHHS") disallowing Medicaid reimbursement of certain provider
expenses. DHHS filed a motion to dismiss Bayview's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
A hearing was conducted on January 5, 1999 at the Administrative Law Judge Division in
Columbia, South Carolina, at which time the parties presented oral arguments. For the reasons stated
herein, the motion to dismiss is denied and the decision of DHHS is affirmed.
BACKGROUND
Bayview is a licensed nursing home in Beaufort, South Carolina. It has contracted with
DHHS, as the State Medicaid agency, to provide long-term care services to Medicaid recipients in
South Carolina under the Medicaid program. The Medicaid program is a joint venture between the
states and the federal government to provide medical assistance to individuals meeting certain
financial and other criteria. The states furnish the primary administrative oversight for Medicaid,
and each state has a degree of flexibility in designing a program that can best meet the needs of its
residents. Long-term care providers are reimbursed on a reasonable cost basis for all items of
expense which they must incur to meet the definition of nursing facility services under federal
regulations. Providers are required to submit uniform cost reports for auditing by DHHS and the
State Auditor's Office ("SAO").
On September 22, 1997, the SAO issued reports on its audit of Bayview's cost reports for
the periods ending September 30, 1992, September 30, 1993 and September 30, 1994. In these
reports, the SAO made adjustments disallowing certain costs reported by Bayview. These costs
included interest expenses incurred on the working capital portion of a loan taken out by Bayview
in 1988 or 1989 ("the 1989 loan"). The total loan amount was approximately $3,000,000 and the
proceeds were apportioned among the refinancing of a mortgage, working capital, the purchase of
treasury stock, and investment funds.
When the SAO previously audited Bayview's cost report for the 1991 reporting period, it
determined that the borrowing for working capital was not necessary due to the availability of funds
which could be used to eliminate the need for borrowing for working capital. These funds were in
the form of an outstanding loan to Bayview's sole shareholder ("shareholder receivables") and
investment funds. (Record on Appeal, Petitioner's Exhibit 13). Bayview did not appeal that
determination. During the 1997 audit, DHHS determined that because the working capital portion
of the loan had already been deemed unnecessary in a prior audit and no new working capital
borrowings occurred in the 1992, 1993 and 1994 reporting periods, no interest on working capital
debt was reimbursable.
Bayview requested a contested case hearing before the appeals division of DHHS on the
disallowance of working capital interest expenses for the 1992, 1993, and 1994 reporting periods.
After the DHHS hearing officer upheld the disallowance, Bayview filed this appeal with the
Administrative Law Judge Division.
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Did DHHS properly disallow reimbursement of working capital interest expenses for the
1992, 1993 and 1994 cost reporting periods due to unnecessary borrowing?
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The provisions of the South Carolina Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") govern an
appeal from a final administrative decision. Lark v. Bi-Lo. Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 276 S.E.2d 304
(1981). Under the APA, the Administrative Law Judge may reverse or modify the decision if
substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusions
or decisions are:
(a) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
(b) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency;
(c) made upon unlawful procedure;
(d) affected by other error of law;
(e) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial
evidence on the whole record; or
(f) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or
clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6) and (B) (Supp. 1998).
Substantial evidence is that evidence which, in considering the record as a whole, would
allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion that the administrative agency reached. E.g.,
Jennings v. Chambers Development Co., Op. No. 2877 (S.C.Ct.App. filed August 10, 1998) (Shealy
Adv.Sh. # 28 at 23). This tribunal may not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative
agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 276
S.E.2d 304 (1981). The possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does
not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence. Id.
Where there is a conflict in the evidence, the administrative agency's findings of fact are conclusive.
Id.; see also Harbin v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas, 316 S.C. 423, 450 S.E.2d 112 (Ct. App. 1994)
(existence of any conflicting opinions between doctors is a matter left to the administrative agency).
The burden is on the appellant to show convincingly that the Board's order is without
evidentiary support or is arbitrary or capricious as a matter of law. See Hamm v. Public Service
Commission of South Carolina, 310 S.C. 13, 425 S.E.2d 28 (1992); Hamm v. American Tel. & Tel.
Co., 302 S.C. 210, 394 S.E.2d 842 (1990).
DISCUSSION
Motion to Dismiss
DHHS moves to dismiss Bayview's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. DHHS asserts that
Bayview's Notice of Intent to Appeal is not specific enough in its allegation of error. I disagree.
To invoke the jurisdiction of the Administrative Law Judge Division in an appeal of an
agency decision, a notice of appeal including a general statement of the grounds for appeal as
provided in S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6) (Supp. 1998) must be filed within thirty days of the
receipt of the decision being appealed. ALJD Rule 33; see also S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(B)
(Supp. 1998)(in cases involving appellate jurisdiction of the Administrative Law Judge Division,
petition for review must be filed within thirty days after the final decision of the agency).(1)
The
failure to do so is fatal to the appeal, since the APA does not allow jurisdiction to vest in the absence
of a sufficient notice of appeal. See Pringle v. Builders Transport, 298 S.C. 494, 381 S.E.2d 731,
732 (1989), citing Smith v. South Carolina Dept. of Social Services, 284 S.C. 469, 327 S.E.2d 348
(1985).
A petition for ... review pursuant to the
Administrative Procedures Act must direct the court's
attention to the abuse allegedly committed below,
including a distinct and specific statement of the
rulings of which the appellant complains. . . . [The
reviewing court] lacks jurisdiction of the appeal if the
notice is insufficient.
Pringle, 381 S.E.2d at 732 (1989).
Bayview's Notice of Intent to Appeal states the ruling of which it complains (failure to allow
interest expense) and it lists four of the six general grounds for reversal listed in S.C. Code Ann. §
1-23-380(A)(6) (Supp. 1998). I find that Bayview's Notice of Intent to Appeal complies with ALJD
Rule 33(B), which requires merely a general statement of the grounds of appeal as set forth in S.C.
Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6) (Supp. 1998). The Notice of Intent to Appeal also complies with case
law interpreting the Administrative Procedures Act. Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss is denied.
Bayview requests this tribunal to require DHHS to pay its attorney's fees and costs incurred
in responding to the Motion to Dismiss. I find that the Motion to Dismiss was not so clearly
erroneous as to rise to the level of bad faith. Therefore, attorney's fees and costs on the motion are
denied.
Interest as an Allowable Cost
In determining costs for which a provider may be reimbursed under the Medicaid program,
DHHS follows the requirements of the State Medicaid Plan ("Plan"), which customizes federal
Medicaid policies and rules to meet the particular needs of South Carolina citizens. Section F-1 of
the Plan defines the meaning of "allowable costs." The term includes all items of expense which
providers must incur in order to meet the definition of nursing facility services, as detailed in
applicable federal regulations, and to comply with state regulations on health standards. Section F-1
also provides that allowable costs are determined in accordance with applicable federal regulations
and the Provider Reimbursement Manual ("HCFA Pub. 15-1"), except those provisions which are
modified by the State Plan. It is undisputed that all provisions in HCFA Pub.15-1 which are
applicable to the issues in this appeal have not been modified by the State Plan.
Under HCFA Pub. 15-1 § 2100, all payments to providers must be (1) based on the
reasonable cost of services covered under federal law; and (2) related to patient care. "Reasonable
cost" includes all necessary and proper costs incurred in rendering the services. Section 2102.1
provides that it is the intent of the program that providers are reimbursed the actual costs of
providing high quality care, regardless of how widely the costs may vary from provider to provider,
except where a particular institution's costs are found to be substantially out of line with similar
institutions in the same area. Implicit in the intention that actual costs be paid to the extent they are
reasonable is the expectation that the provider seeks to minimize its costs and that its actual costs
do not exceed what a prudent and cost conscious buyer pays for a given item or service. If costs are
determined to exceed the level that such buyers incur, in the absence of clear evidence that the higher
costs were unavoidable, the excess costs are not reimbursable under the program.
Costs "related to patient care" include all necessary and proper costs which are appropriate
and helpful in developing and maintaining the operation of patient care facilities and activities.
HCFA Pub. 15-1 § 2102.2. Further, intermediaries may employ various means for detecting
situations in which costs seem excessive. HCFA Pub. 15-1 § 2103(B).
Interest on both current and capital indebtedness that is necessary and proper for the
operation, maintenance, or acquisition of provider facilities is an allowable cost. HCFA Pub. 15-1
§§ 200 and 202.1. To be considered necessary, the interest must be: (1) incurred on a loan that is
made to satisfy a financial need; (2) for a purpose related to patient care; and (3) incurred on a loan
that is reduced by investment income. HCFA Pub. 15-1 § 202.2. If a borrowing or a portion of a
borrowing is considered unnecessary, the interest expense on the borrowing, or the unnecessary
portion of the borrowing, is not an allowable cost. Id. Patient care funds should be available for the
provider's patient care purposes, enabling it to avoid interest expense attributable to unnecessary
borrowing. Id. When a provider diverts patient care related funds to other uses, there is an impact
on any subsequent borrowing. Id. Funds may be diverted in many ways with the most common
being by transferring, making loans, or investing. Id.
When borrowed funds create excess working capital, interest expense on such borrowed
funds is not an allowable cost. HCFA Pub. 15-1 § 202.2(A). The burden of proof is on the provider
to show that there is a financial need for the borrowing and that the borrowing does not result in
excess working capital. Id. If a provider transfers funds generated from patient care activities, or
any funds that cannot be documented as funds not generated from patient care activities, to an
organization related to the provider, the funds transferred are considered available to the provider.
Id. If such funds could have been used to eliminate a borrowing or to result in a lesser borrowing,
a portion of the borrowing equivalent to the amount transferred is considered unnecessary. Id.
Interest on that portion of the loan is not allowable. Id.
Loan History
Bayview's working capital interest expenses for the cost reporting periods 1992-1994 were
disallowed due to the unappealed finding, during the 1991 SAO audit, that characterized the
underlying debt as unnecessary.(2) At the end of the September 30, 1991 reporting period, the balance
of the working capital portion of the loan was $244,644, the balance of the "investment funds"
portion of the loan was $191,100, and the balance of an outstanding loan given to Bayview's sole
shareholder was $354,216.(3) During the 1992 reporting period, the 1989 loan was refinanced. The
refinancing included the borrowing of additional funds for the construction of expansions to the
facility. Additionally, during this cost reporting period, $116,758 of the loan proceeds previously
allocated to investment funds was reallocated to working capital, increasing the reported balance on
working capital debt in Bayview's 1992 cost report.(4) No additional funds, however, were actually
borrowed for working capital.
The balance of shareholder loans at the end of reporting period 1992 was $136,378, which
included $74,793 from borrowed funds. This represented a decrease of approximately $225,000
from the prior year's balance. Bayview declared a $225,000 dividend to its shareholder which was
directly transferred to decrease the balance of the shareholder loan. The reported balance on working
capital debt decreased in both the 1993 and 1994 cost reports. There were no new borrowings for
working capital in these reporting periods. During the cost reporting period ending September 30,
1993, Bayview distributed $83,000 in dividends to its shareholder. Of this amount, $33,000 was
used to decrease the balance of shareholder receivables. During the cost reporting period ending
September 30, 1994, Bayview distributed $250,000 in dividends to its shareholder.
Disallowance of working capital interest expenses
Bayview argues that the disallowance of interest expenses for 1992 through 1994 was not
supported by the audit working papers. There is no merit to this argument. All working papers taken
together support the disallowance of working capital interest expenses for the 1992-1994 reporting
periods. The working papers generated for the 1997 audit reference prior reports and working papers
as sources. (Record on Appeal, Petitioner's Exhibit 8). This is consistent with HCFA Pub. 13 §
4112-4.a4, which allows for cross-referencing to other working papers as a source of information
and includes in the definition of "working papers" memoranda, analyses, abstracts of provider
documents and commentaries obtained by the auditor. This supports the view that the "audit work
papers," for purposes of HCFA Pub. 13 § 4112.5, properly encompass all working papers and
planning memoranda for prior audits indicating the nature of the 1989 loan as unnecessary.
Timing of Financial Need Analysis
Bayview argues that the SAO and DHHS should have examined the relationship between
working capital debt and shareholder loans for each separate cost reporting period to determine the
debt's necessity instead of viewing this relationship only at the time of borrowing. Bayview reasons
that reimbursement of working capital interest expense is determined by the availability of funds at
the time of the cost reporting period under audit review regardless of the non-allowable nature of the
debt when originally incurred. DHHS argues that the only appropriate and logical time to determine
the character of the debt as necessary or unnecessary is at the time of borrowing. I agree.
Whether a provider has a financial need for borrowing can only be determined at the time of
borrowing. If the available funds had in fact been used to eliminate the borrowing, as they should
have been, there would be no loan balance on which to incur interest in subsequent years. This
analysis is consistent with holdings of the Provider Reimbursement Review Board. See Little
Company of Mary Hospital v. Blue Cross, Medicare and Medicaid Guide (CCH) ¶ 45,739 (P.R.R.B.
October 21, 1997), 1997 WL 671334 (a financial need for the incurrence of debt must be
demonstrated at the time the loan was actually incurred); cf. Bethesda Lutheran Medical Center v.
Blue Cross, 1996 WL 860648 (P.R.R.B.) (when new debt refinances old debt, the new debt takes
on the character, either necessary or unnecessary, of the old refinanced debt); Bethesda Lutheran
Medical Center v. Blue Cross, 1994 WL 928192 (P.R.R.B.) (since the intermediary accepted 1980,
1982, and 1984 borrowings as necessary, and allowed the interest expense as reimbursable costs
when it audited those years, then the interest claimed on the provider's 1988 cost report, for
refinancing the prior years' debt, is allowable).
After a provider's borrowing has been deemed unnecessary, if the provider has a true
financial need for a working capital loan in subsequent years, it can be satisfied by a new borrowing,
which would trigger a re-examination of the relationship between working capital debt and funds
deemed available to the provider.
Refinancing
When new debt refinances old debt, the new debt takes on the character, either necessary or
unnecessary, of the old refinanced debt. Bethesda Lutheran Medical Center v. Blue Cross, 1996 WL
860648 (P.R.R.B. April 4, 1996). SAO, however, still has a responsibility to investigate the purpose
and the allocation of any proceeds from additional borrowings in a refinancing arrangement, to
determine if there is a "new borrowing" for purposes of examining financial need. Therefore, the
balances for working capital debt and sources of available funds, such as investments, shareholder
loans or transfers to other related entities, should be examined in each separate cost reporting period
to determine if any new borrowings have occurred and the financial need for any new borrowings.
Bayview argues that its circumstances are special because the 1989 loan was a multi-year
loan, in which certain amounts are to be designated for working capital for each cost reporting year;
the full amount of proceeds were issued in year one and a portion is to be allocated as working
capital in each following year.(5) Bayview, however, also concedes that the allocation does not
constitute a new loan each year, but is merely a designation of what is used for working capital. The
SAO reasoned that even if the allocation of already-borrowed funds, previously allocated to
investment funds, to working capital in subsequent years could be considered a "new borrowing,"
the reporting periods in dispute revealed excess shareholder dividends that could have eliminated
the need for such an allocation.
I agree that the dividend distributions were available to eliminate the need for any increase
in working capital debt for the cost reporting periods in question. Bayview argues that the
shareholder is entitled to distributions and that he is entitled to use the distribution for any purpose,
including paying back a loan from the provider. While this may be true, when a provider is a
participant in the Medicaid program and has access to funds that it chooses to distribute to its
shareholders, those funds must be considered available to the provider for purposes of determining
the necessity of a borrowing, even if they are used to reduce the amount of shareholder receivables.
While there is nothing legally wrong with the provider continuing to incur interest expense on a loan
for working capital despite the availability of internal funds for this purpose, the provider cannot
claim that it is necessary to do so. Cf. Hampton Nursing Center v. State Health and Human Services
Finance Comm'n, 303 S.C. 143, 399 S.E.2d 434, 438 (Ct. App. 1990) (upholding the imputation of
interest to the provider for the amount it could have earned on its interest-free loan to shareholders).
Curing
If funds are available to the provider at the time of borrowing that would eliminate the need
for the borrowing, the provider's financial circumstances in subsequent cost reporting periods cannot
undo or "cure" the character of the borrowing, unless the available funds were in a funded
depreciation account, representing funds set aside for a purpose relating to patient care. This is
known as the "spend-down" principle. See Rockford Memorial Hospital v. Aetna Life Insurance
Co., Medicare & Medicaid Guide (CCH) ¶ 40,823 (P.R.R.B. September 28, 1992), quoting 56 Fed.
Reg. 43,421 (1991) ("'Spenddown is a process whereby we permit providers to cure borrowing that
we found to be unnecessary because of available funded depreciation by using those funded
depreciation funds for a proper purpose.'") (emphasis added). HCFA policy to allow curing of an
unnecessary borrowing where the available funds were in a funded depreciation account is a
recognition that proper financial planning for patient-related capital expenditures may require
maintaining a balance in that account. Id.; see also Mercy Hospital v. Blue Cross, Medicare &
Medicaid Guide (CCH) ¶ 30,130 (P.R.R.B. Sept. 6, 1979). The premise for the spend-down
principle is that funded depreciation funds previously available to the provider become unavailable
once they are spent for patient care purposes, thereby curing the prior characterization of a borrowing
as "unnecessary."
Bayview argues that the reduction of shareholder receivables in this case is analogous to the
spend-down of funds in a funded depreciation account. A shareholder receivable account, however,
does not represent funds set aside for a purpose related to patient care. Further, after the transfer of
funds to the shareholder, which remain "available" for purposes of determining financial need,
nothing can be done to change the character of those funds to "unavailable."
DHHS expresses the view that it is not normal for a facility to borrow working capital every
year. This view, however, is inconsistent with the view expressed by HCFA that a borrowing for
working capital is usually in the form of a short-term loan. See HCFA Pub. 15-1 § 202.1 ("Interest
on current indebtedness is the cost incurred for funds borrowed for a relatively short term, usually
for 1 year or less. Current borrowing is usually for purposes such as working capital for normal
operating expenses."). DHHS concedes that if a provider did borrow working capital every year,
then it would examine the interest expenses every year. DHHS argues that in Bayview's case, the
balance of working capital debt was attributable to an allocation from a large loan instead of a new
loan.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the substantial evidence in the record supports the final
administrative determination of DHHS, and that no substantial rights of the appellant have been
prejudiced due to any error of law or abuse of discretion.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the decision of the Department of Health and Human
Services is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
ALISON RENEE LEE
Administrative Law Judge
February 17, 1999
Columbia, South Carolina.
1. The Administrative Law Judge Division has authority to hear appeals from DHHS under the
Medically Indigent Assistance Act pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 44-6-190 (Supp. 1998).
2. An unappealed finding becomes the law of the case. See Continental Ins. Co. v. Shives, 328
S.C. 470, 492 S.E.2d 808 (Ct. App. 1997).
3. $74,793 of this amount came from funds borrowed by the provider.
4. The evidence indicates that the remainder of the increase in the working capital balance from
September 1991 to 1992 was accrued interest and allocated refinancing costs. (Record on Appeal,
Petitioner's Exhibit 2).
5. The evidence in the record indicates only that previously-borrowed funds allocated to
investments were reallocated to the working capital portion of the debt when funds were drawn to
use as working capital on an as-needed basis; not necessarily every year. Such a reallocation
occurred only in the 1992 reporting period. |