Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 409.9131 (2025)
Special provisions relating to integrity of the Medicaid program.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
409.9131 Special provisions relating to integrity of the Medicaid program.—
(1) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT.—It is the intent of the Legislature that physicians, as defined in this section, be subject to Medicaid fraud and abuse investigations in accordance with the provisions set forth in this section as a supplement to the provisions contained in s. 409.913. If a conflict exists between the provisions of this section and s. 409.913, it is the intent of the Legislature that the provisions of this section shall control.
(2) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section, the term:
(a) “Active practice” means a physician must have regularly provided medical care and treatment to patients within the past 2 years.
(b) “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. In making determinations of medical necessity, the agency must, to the maximum extent possible, use a physician in active practice, either employed by or under contract with the agency, of the same specialty or subspecialty as the physician under review. Such determination must be based upon the information available at the time the goods or services were provided.
(c) “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.
(d) “Peer review” means an evaluation of the professional practices of a Medicaid physician provider by a peer or peers in order to assess the medical necessity, appropriateness, and quality of care provided, as such care is compared to that customarily furnished by the physician’s peers and to recognized health care standards, and, in cases involving determination of medical necessity, to determine whether the documentation in the physician’s records is adequate.
(e) “Physician” means a person licensed to practice medicine under chapter 458 or a person licensed to practice osteopathic medicine under chapter 459.
(f) “Professional services” means procedures provided to a Medicaid recipient, either directly by or under the supervision of a physician who is a registered provider for the Medicaid program.
(3) ONSITE RECORDS REVIEW.—As specified in s. 409.913(9), the agency may investigate, review, or analyze a physician’s medical records concerning Medicaid patients. The physician must make such records available to the agency during normal business hours. The agency must provide notice to the physician at least 24 hours before such visit. The agency and physician shall make every effort to set a mutually agreeable time for the agency’s visit during normal business hours and within the 24-hour period. If such a time cannot be agreed upon, the agency may set the time.
(4) NOTICE OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS REQUIRED.—Whenever the agency seeks an administrative remedy against a physician pursuant to this section or s. 409.913, the physician must be advised of his or her rights to due process under chapter 120. This provision shall not limit or hinder the agency’s ability to pursue any remedy available to it under s. 409.913 or other applicable law.
(5) DETERMINATIONS OF OVERPAYMENT.—In making a determination of overpayment to a physician, the agency must:
(a) 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, other generally accepted statistical methods, review of medical records, and a consideration of the physician’s client case mix. Before performing a review of the physician’s Medicaid records, however, the agency shall make every effort to consider the physician’s patient case mix, including, but not limited to, patient age. In meeting its burden of proof in any administrative or court proceeding, the agency may introduce the results of such statistical methods and its other audit findings as evidence of overpayment.
(b) Refer 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.
(6) COST REPORTS.—For any Medicaid provider submitting a cost report to the agency by any method, and in addition to any other certification, the following statement must immediately precede the dated signature of the provider’s administrator or chief financial officer on such cost report:
“I certify that I am familiar with the laws and regulations regarding the provision of health care services under the Florida Medicaid program, including the laws and regulations relating to claims for Medicaid reimbursements and payments, and that the services identified in this cost report were provided in compliance with such laws and regulations.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2015–2024 · leading case: Murciano v. State, Agency for Health Care Admin., 208 So. 3d 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).
Murciano v. State, Agency for Health Care Admin., 208 So. 3d 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). “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.”
State v. Murciano, 163 So. 3d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). “O’Hern is a ‘peer’ of respondent as defined by Section 409.9131(2)(c), Florida Statutes.”
Lutheran Servs. Florida, Inc. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 199 So. 3d 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). “” The Department did not call any medical expert witnesses; rather it argued that a guardian fee is not a “medically necessary” expense pursuant to the definition of that term contained in section 409.9131(2)(b) and that therefore a guardian fee cannot be deducted from an…”
State of Florida, Agency For Health Care Admin. v. Alfred Ivan Murciano, M.D. (Fla. 1st DCA 2024). “Jenkins, did not qualify as a “peer” under section 409.9131(5)(b), Florida Statutes.”
— 409.9131(2)(b) — 2 cases
Lutheran Servs. Florida, Inc. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 199 So. 3d 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). “” The Department did not call any medical expert witnesses; rather it argued that a guardian fee is not a “medically necessary” expense pursuant to the definition of that term contained in section 409.9131(2)(b) and that therefore a guardian fee cannot be deducted from an…”
Murciano v. State, Agency for Health Care Admin., 208 So. 3d 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). “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.”
— 409.9131(2)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Murciano, 163 So. 3d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). “O’Hern is a ‘peer’ of respondent as defined by Section 409.9131(2)(c), Florida Statutes.”
Murciano v. State, Agency for Health Care Admin., 208 So. 3d 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). “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.”
— 409.9131(2)(e) — 1 case
State v. Murciano, 163 So. 3d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). “O’Hern is a ‘peer’ of respondent as defined by Section 409.9131(2)(c), Florida Statutes.”
— 409.9131(5)(b) — 2 cases
Murciano v. State, Agency for Health Care Admin., 208 So. 3d 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). “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.”
State of Florida, Agency For Health Care Admin. v. Alfred Ivan Murciano, M.D. (Fla. 1st DCA 2024). “Jenkins, did not qualify as a “peer” under section 409.9131(5)(b), Florida Statutes.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.