joel b. strauss gwendolyn n. cutini 850 third avenue, 14th...
TRANSCRIPT
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 1 of 133 PageID #: 747
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
In re: GENTIVA SECURITIES LITIGATION
CASE NO. 10-CV-5064 (ADS)(WDW)
CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP Frederic S. Fox Joel B. Strauss Jeffrey P. Campisi Gwendolyn N. Cutini 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, New York 10022 Tel: (212) 687-1980 Fax: (212) 687-7714
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP Justin B. Farar 11111 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 620 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: (310) 575-8604 Fax: (310) 575-8697
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP Laurence D. King 350 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, California 94104 Tel: (415) 772-4700 Fax: (415) 772-4707
Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff the Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System and the Proposed Class
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 2 of 133 PageID #: 748
Table of Contents
I. NATURE AND GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE CLAIMS ............................................. 1
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ............................................................................................ 2
III. EXCHANGE ACT CLAIMS ................................................................................................ 2
A . The Exchange Act Parties ............................................................................................. 5
B. Overview of the Exchange Act Defendants’ Wrongful Conduct ................................ 7
1. Relevant Background on Home Health Care Eligibility Rules and Regulations, Medicare’s Prospective Payment System and Therapy Thresholds ............................. 7
a. Bonus Payments Based on Number of Visits ........................................................... 9
b. Recertifications ....................................................................................................... 10
c. LUPAs .................................................................................................................... 11
2. Statistics Suggest that Gentiva Provided Therapy Visits Based on Meeting Bonus Payment Criteria, Rather Than Patient Medical Needs ................................... 11
3. Lead Counsel’s Investigation Corroborates the Findings of the SFC......................... 18
4. The SEC is Investigating Gentiva ............................................................................... 35
C. The Exchange Act Defendants’ Materially False and Misleading Statements ........... 35
1. Second Quarter 2008 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standards and Regulations .................................................................. 37
2. Third Quarter 2008 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standards and Regulations .................................................................. 45
3. 2008 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standardsand Regulations .......................................................................................... 50
4. First Quarter 2009 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standards and Regulations .................................................................. 57
5. Second Quarter 2009 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standards and Regulations .................................................................. 62
i
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 3 of 133 PageID #: 749
6. Third Quarter 2009 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standards and Regulations .................................................................. 66
7. 2009 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standardsand Regulations .......................................................................................... 77
8. First Quarter 2010 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standards and Regulations .................................................................. 78
9. Second Quarter 2010 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standards and Regulations .................................................................. 81
10. Third Quarter 2010 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standards and Regulations .................................................................. 87
11. 2010 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standardsand Regulations .......................................................................................... 91
12. First Quarter 2011 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standards and Regulations .................................................................. 96
13. Second Quarter 2011 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standards and Regulations .................................................................. 97
D. Loss Causation/Economic Loss ................................................................................ 100
E. Fraud-On-The-Market Doctrine ................................................................................ 105
F. Additional Scienter Allegations ................................................................................ 106
G. No Safe Harbor ......................................................................................................... 108
H. Claims for Relief under the Exchange Act ............................................................... 108
IV. SECURITIES ACT CLAIMS ............................................................................................ 111
A. The Securities Act Parties ......................................................................................... 111
B. Gentiva’s False and Misleading Offering Documents .............................................. 112
1. The 2009 10-K .......................................................................................................... 113
2. The Q1 2010 10-Q .................................................................................................... 115
3. The Q2 2010 10-Q .................................................................................................... 116
ii
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 4 of 133 PageID #: 750
4 . The Q3 2010 10-Q .................................................................................................... 117
C. Claims for Relief Under the Securities Act .............................................................. 119
V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS .................................................................................. 121
iii
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 5 of 133 PageID #: 751
Lead Plaintiff, the Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System (“LACERS”), by its
attorneys, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, alleges the following based upon
the investigation by Lead Plaintiff’s counsel, except as to allegations specifically pertaining to
Lead Plaintiff, which are based on personal knowledge. The investigation by counsel included,
among other things, a review of Gentiva Health Services, Inc.’s (“Gentiva” or the “Company”)
public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), press releases issued
by the Company, public conference calls, media, analyst and news reports about the Company,
publicly available trading data relating to the price and volume of Gentiva securities, the Staff
Report on Home Health and the Medicare Therapy Threshold prepared by the Staff of the U.S.
Senate Finance Committee, including the Appendix of documents attached thereto, and Lead
Counsel’s interviews with former Gentiva employees.
I. NATURE AND GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE CLAIMS
1. This is a securities class action brought under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k, and 77o, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a); and
SEC Rules 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 (the “Action”).
2. The Action is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities that
purchased the publicly traded securities of Gentiva between July 31, 2008 and October 4, 2011,
inclusive (the “Class Period”) against Gentiva and certain of its present and former officers,
executives, and directors for violations of the Exchange Act and the Securities Act.
3. The Exchange Act claims are alleged in Section III of this Consolidated Class
Action Complaint (the “Complaint”) and the Securities Act claims are alleged in Section IV of
the Complaint. The Class Action allegations are in Section V of the Complaint.
1
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 6 of 133 PageID #: 752
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action pursuant to
Section 22(a) of the Securities Act (15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)), Section 27 of the Exchange Act (15
U.S.C. § 78aa), and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
5. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to Section 22(a) of the Securities Act (15
U.S.C. § 77v), Section 27 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. § 78aa) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and
(c). Substantial acts in furtherance of the wrongs alleged and/or their effects have occurred
within this District, and for part of the Class Period Gentiva maintained its principal office in
Melville, New York.
6. In connection with the acts and omissions alleged in this Complaint, all of the
defendants, directly or indirectly, used the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce,
including, but not limited to, the mails, interstate telephone communications, and the facilities of
the national securities markets.
III. EXCHANGE ACT CLAIMS
7. Gentiva purports to be a provider of home health and hospice services, providing
nursing; physical, occupational, speech and neurorehabilitation services; and other therapies and
services. During the Class Period, the Company reportedly provided direct home nursing and
therapy services through licensed and Medicare-certified agencies located in 39 states.
8. During the Class Period, Gentiva reported increased revenues and profit margins,
in large part, due to Gentiva’s purported growth in its home health business. Gentiva’s most
significant reimbursement source was the U.S. government’s Medicare program. Notably, of
Gentiva’s home health revenues between 2008 and 2011, Medicare reimbursements represented
approximately 69%, 72%, 75% and 78%, respectively.
2
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 7 of 133 PageID #: 753
9. Accordingly, Gentiva’s continued compliance with Medicare standards and
regulations was materially important to Gentiva’s financial results and continued growth. In
fact, Gentiva’s quarterly and annual filings with the SEC repeatedly represented that “there are
certain standards and regulations that the Company must adhere to in order to continue to
participate in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state healthcare programs . . . The
Company believes that it is currently in compliance with these standards and regulations.”
10. The Exchange Act Defendants further represented that the Company maintained a
“robust” and “best-in-class” compliance department; that the Company did not condone
manipulation of the Medicare reimbursement system; and that the Company maintained effective
internal controls over financial reporting and maintained effective disclosure controls and
procedures.
11. However, as alleged in detail below, an investigation by the U.S. Senate Finance
Committee (“SFC”), as well as Lead Counsel’s own investigation, revealed that these
representations were materially false and misleading when made because the Exchange Act
Defendants knowingly, or with at least reckless disregard, misstated that the Company was in
compliance with Medicare standards and regulations and failed to disclose that, in its effort to
report ever increasing revenues and profit margins, Gentiva and its most senior management
caused Gentiva’s employees and clinicians to seek reimbursement from Medicare for medically
unnecessary services—in direct violation of Medicare standards and regulations.
12. As alleged below, the SFC found internal, nonpublic documents, including
emails, that showed Gentiva management, including its most senior executives, discussed
increasing therapy visits and expanding specialty programs to increase Medicare reimbursements
in response to changes to the Medicare reimbursement system in 2008. Specifically, internal
3
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 8 of 133 PageID #: 754
emails reflect that Defendants Anthony M. Strange (“Strange”) (Gentiva’s CEO and Chairman)
and Ronald A. Malone (“Malone”) (Gentiva’s former CEO and Chairman) closely followed
changes to policies and procedures for reimbursement from Medicare and, along with other
Company executives, were well aware of internal discussions and analyses by Gentiva senior
management concerning how reimbursement revenue from Medicare could be increased by
providing patients with additional therapy visits and services, regardless of medical need.
13. Indeed, as alleged in detail below, the SFC found that home healthcare practices
at Gentiva (and certain other home health providers) “at best represent abuses of the Medicare
home health program. At worst, they may be examples of for-profit companies defrauding the
Medicare home health program at the expense of taxpayers.”
14. Further, the findings of the SFC were corroborated in interviews conducted by
Lead Counsel with numerous former Gentiva clinicians and branch managers from Gentiva
locations across the U.S. These former employees, representing numerous Gentiva offices from
diverse areas of the U.S., told a common story of being chronically pressured by senior Gentiva
management to provide medically unnecessary services to patients in order to improperly
increase reimbursements from Medicare.
15. As a result of the Exchange Act Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Gentiva shares
traded at artificial prices throughout the Class Period, trading, at certain points, over $30 per
share.
16. As alleged below, through a series of partial disclosures that revealed the truth
about Gentiva, the Company’s stock price declined and by the end of the Class Period, the
Company’s common stock traded at $3.02 per share, a decline of approximately 90% from the
Class Period high.
4
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 9 of 133 PageID #: 755
A. The Exchange Act Parties
17. Lead Plaintiff LACERS, as detailed in the certification attached hereto, purchased
Gentiva’s publicly traded common stock during the Class Period and was damaged thereby.
18. Defendant Gentiva is incorporated in Delaware and its current principal executive
offices are located at 3350 Riverwood Parkway, Suite 1400, Atlanta, Georgia 30339. During the
Class Period, Gentiva maintained executive offices in Melville, New York.
19. Defendant Malone was the Company’s Chief Executive Officer from June 2002
to December 2008 and was the Company’s Chairman of the Board of Directors until May 2011,
when Strange became Chairman. During the Class Period, Malone acquired 146,775 Gentiva
shares through the exercise or conversion of stock options and he sold nearly all of them
(145,018 shares) at artificially inflated prices for proceeds of approximately $3.1 million.
Malone did not purchase Gentiva shares on the open market. During the Class Period, Malone
signed Gentiva’s annual and quarterly reports filed with the SEC and made false representations
to investors and analysts on conference calls as alleged herein.
20. Defendant John R. Potapchuk (“Potapchuk”) was the Company’s Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer from the beginning of the Class Period until May 13, 2010. During the
Class Period, Potapchuk acquired 120,505 shares through the exercise or conversion of options
and he sold nearly all of them (115,883 shares) for proceeds of approximately $3.2 million.
Potapchuk did not purchase any Gentiva shares on the open market. During the Class Period,
Potapchuk signed Gentiva’s annual and quarterly reports filed with the SEC and made false
representations to investors and analysts on conference calls as alleged herein.
21. Strange became Gentiva’s Chief Executive Officer in January 2009 and the
Company’s Chairman of the Board of Directors in May 2011. He served as Gentiva’s President
5
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 10 of 133 PageID #: 756
beginning in 2007 and as Chief Operating Officer from November 2007 until May 2009. From
February 2006 to November 2007, Strange served as executive V.P. of Gentiva and president of
Gentiva’s home health division. During the Class Period, Strange acquired 109,608 Gentiva
shares through the exercise or conversion of stock options and he sold 31,078 Gentiva shares at
artificial prices for proceeds of approximately $756,712. Strange did not purchase any Gentiva
shares on the open market. During the Class Period, Strange signed Gentiva’s annual and
quarterly reports filed with the SEC and made false representations to investors and analysts on
conference calls as alleged herein
22. Defendant Eric R. Slusser (“Slusser”) has served as the Company’s Chief
Financial Officer, Treasurer and Executive V.P. since May 13, 2010. During the Class Period,
Slusser signed Gentiva’s annual and quarterly reports filed with the SEC and made false
representations to investors and analysts on conference calls as alleged herein.
23. Strange, Malone, Potapchuk, and Slusser are referred to herein as the “Individual
Exchange Act Defendants.” The Individual Exchange Act Defendants, because of their positions
with the Company, possessed the power and authority to control the contents of Gentiva’s
quarterly reports, press releases and presentations to securities analysts, money and portfolio
managers and institutional investors, i.e. , the market. Each of the Individual Exchange Act
Defendants was provided with copies of the Company’s reports and press releases alleged herein
to be misleading prior to or shortly after their issuance and had the ability and opportunity to
prevent their issuance or cause them to be corrected. Because of their positions and their access
to material non-public information, each of the Individual Exchange Act Defendants knew, or at
least recklessly disregarded, that the adverse material facts specified herein had not been
disclosed to and were being concealed from the public and that the positive representations
6
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 11 of 133 PageID #: 757
which were being made were then materially false and misleading. The Individual Exchange
Act Defendants are liable for their respective false representations pleaded herein.
24. Gentiva and the Individual Exchange Act Defendants are collectively referred to
as the “Exchange Act Defendants.”
B. Overview of the Exchange Act Defendants’ Wrongful Conduct
1. Relevant Background on Home Health Care Eligibility Rules and Regulations, Medicare’s Prospective Payment System and Therapy Thresholds.
25. The Social Security Act defines the eligibility and coverage requirements for
Medicare home health benefits by stating that home health services shall be provided only to
beneficiaries who (1) are homebound ; (2) have medical necessity (i.e. , need intermittent skilled
nursing care, physical therapy, speech therapy or occupational therapy); and (3) are under a
physician’s plan of care. See Social Security Act §§ 1814(a)(2)(C) and 1835(a)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1395f and 1395n(a)(2)(A). Medicare defines “medically necessary” services as those “that
are needed for the diagnosis or treatment of your medical condition and meet accepted standards
of medical practice.”
26. Gentiva’s annual report for the year ended December 31, 2010 filed with the SEC
on Form 10-K (“2010 10-K”) represented, in part, the following:
Government Regulations
The Company’s business is subject to extensive federal, state and, in some instances, local regulations which govern, among other things: Medicare . . . .
The Company’s compliance with these regulations may affect its participation in Medicare . . . to participate in the Medicare program, a Medicare beneficiary must be under the care of a physician, have an intermittent need for skilled nursing or physical or other therapy care, must be homebound and must receive home healthcare services from a Medicare certified home healthcare agency. The Company is also subject to a variety of federal and state regulations which
7
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 12 of 133 PageID #: 758
prohibit fraud and abuse in the delivery of healthcare services. These regulations include, among other things: . . . . laws against the filing of false claims . . . .
27. The False Claims Act provides that any person who “knowingly presents, or
causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval; [or] knowingly
makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or
fraudulent claim” is liable for a civil penalty of up to $11,000 for each such claim, plus three
times the amount of the damages sustained by the federal government. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a); see
also 28 C.F.R. § 85.3 (adjustment to penalties).
28. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 changed the way Medicare paid for home
health services such as nursing care, physical, occupational and speech therapy, medical social
work and home health aid services by requiring the implementation of a prospective payment
system, or “PPS.” Under the PPS, home health service providers, such as Gentiva, are paid
prospectively, or in advance, for a substantial portion of the total payment to which they are
entitled for a given patient based on, inter alia, (a) a predetermined rate schedule established by
Medicare, and (b) a pre-treatment assessment of the given patient’s condition and proposed plan
of care during a 60 day time period, known as an “episode.”
29. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) also developed a
patient classification system to adjust payments for home health services under the PPS, known
as the “case-mix adjustment,” that considers each patient’s health characteristics and use of
services.
30. After a physician prescribes a home health plan of care, the service provider (such
as Gentiva) assesses the patient’s condition and likely skilled nursing care, therapy or other
covered needs at the beginning of the episode of care. A nurse or therapist from the service
provider must perform this assessment for the initial episode and each subsequent 60 day episode
8
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 13 of 133 PageID #: 759
of care the patient receives. The assessment is done using a form called the Outcome and
Assessment Information Set, which is commonly referred to as “OASIS.” OASIS items
describing a patient’s condition, as well as expected therapy needs ( i.e. physical, occupational,
speech), are used to determine the case-mix adjustment to the standard payment rate for the
episode. There are 153 case-mix groups, or Home Health Resources Groups (“HHRG”)
available for patient classification.
31. Because HHRG classification, in effect, determines the expected level of home
health care the patient requires, and, accordingly, how much Medicare will pay the home health
care provider, proper completion of the OASIS is of critical importance, especially given that the
system provides that Medicare will typically pay 60% of the total amount the health care
provider is entitled to receive in advance for the services to be provided during the initial 60 day
episode of care.
a. Bonus Payments Based on Number of Visits
32. Through 2007 the Medicare payment system included a therapy “bonus” when a
home health agency provided at least 10 therapy visits. The bonus was substantial and could be
as much as $2,200 for providing a patient with 10 therapy visits. CMS implemented the bonus
measure, in part, to discourage “stinting,” a term used within the industry to describe health care
providers providing the lowest level of service necessary to collect a “bonus”.
33. For a variety of reasons CMS determined to change, effective January 1, 2008, the
number of therapy visits required for a service provider to receive a
“bonus” payment. Instead of the 10 visit threshold, CMS established bonus thresholds at 6, 14
and 20 visits. Home health care providers (such as Gentiva) could receive substantially higher
payments from Medicare if they reached the 6, 14, and 20 visit thresholds within each 60-day
9
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 14 of 133 PageID #: 760
episode period. The service providers could receive greater payments between the thresholds
(i.e. for reaching 7, 10, 11, 16 or 18 therapy visits), but the payments were not as significant as
the 6, 14 and 20 visit payment increases.
34. Although, as noted above, under the PPS the service provider generally receives
an upfront payment of approximately 60% of the estimated payment entitlement under the
Medicare payment grid, the service provider’s final payment is based on the actual number of
home visits made during the 60-day episode.
b. Recertifications
35. Toward the end of the initial episode of care, the clinician must determine
whether the patient is eligible for and requires continued home health care. If a patient continues
to be eligible for the home health benefit under Medicare, the home health PPS permits
continuous episode care—known as a “recertification.” Accordingly, at the end of each 60-day
episode of care, a decision is made as to whether or not to “recertify” the patient for another 60-
day episode. An eligible beneficiary who qualifies to be recertified for another 60-day episode
of care would start the subsequent 60-day episode on day 61. Unlike the initial episode where
the home health care provider receives 60% of the anticipated fee from Medicare upfront, the
home health care provider receives an upfront payment of 50% of the anticipated Medicare fee
for episodes resulting from recertifications. Home health care providers such as Gentiva like
when they can recertify patients for continuous care because it allows for them to maintain their
patient census. Moreover, the health care provider generally reaps a higher profit margin with
respect to such patients. This is the case because, among other things, patient intake and other
information is already in the company’s system, thus reducing paperwork relating to such
patient.
10
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 15 of 133 PageID #: 761
c. LUPAs
36. The PPS has a Low-Utilization Payment Adjustment, or “LUPA”, for patients
who receive less than 5 visits during a 60-day episode. LUPAs may result from a variety of
circumstances, including if a patient refuses to accept more than four visits or is re-hospitalized
or dies before receiving a fifth therapy visit or if it is determined that the patient, due to changed
circumstances, simply does not require more than four visits. LUPAs are paid a standardized
service-specific per visit amount multiplied by the actual number of visits during the episode.
Health care providers such as Gentiva want to avoid LUPAs because not only are the service
specific payments generally less than what they would otherwise receive, but the profit margins
for LUPA patients are much lower because the home health care provider has fewer visits over
which to spread costs relating to servicing the patient such as intake, medical records, billing and
discharge. Moreover, an episode involving a LUPA because of less than five visits can result in
the home health care provider having to pay back to Medicare a substantial amount of money—
that being the difference between the amount originally paid to the company under the PPS
based on the original OASIS form and plan of care and the lesser amount payable under the per-
visit formula applicable to LUPAs.
2. Statistics Suggest that Gentiva Provided Therapy Visits Based on Meeting Bonus Payment Criteria, Rather Than Patient Medical Needs.
37. In apparent response to reports that home health providers such a Gentiva were
providing medically unnecessary visits to patients in order to hit thresholds required by Medicare
to receive bonus payments, the SFC, which has oversight jurisdiction over Medicare, conducted
an investigation commencing in May 2010, which spanned 17 months. In connection with such
investigation the SFC sought, obtained and reviewed documents provided to it by Gentiva.
11
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 16 of 133 PageID #: 762
Based on its investigation, the SFC made a number of findings that were set forth in its report
dated September 30, 2011 and publicly disseminated on October 3, 2011. See Staff of the
Committee on Finance U.S. Senate, 112th Cong., Staff Report on Home Health and the Medicare
Therapy Threshold, S. Prt. 112-24 (2011). (“SFC Report”).
38. As noted in the SFC Report, based on data provided to it by Gentiva, the SFC
found that when Medicare changed the number of visits required for home health providers to
receive bonus payments, there was a statistically significant shift in the number of home visits
Gentiva provided to patients. For example, in 2007, when the 10 visit threshold still applied to
receive a bonus payment, “7.7 percent of Gentiva’s therapy episodes received 10 visits while 3.6
percent of the therapy episodes received 9 visits.” However, in 2008, when the 10 visit threshold
was eliminated and replaced by the 6, 14 and 20 visit thresholds, the number of therapy episodes
that received 10 visits dropped to 5.8 percent, representing a sudden 25% drop in the number of
patient episodes receiving 10 visits.
39. The SFC also found that from 2007 to 2008 when, as described above, the number
of visit thresholds for Medicare bonus payments changed from 10 visits to 6, 14 and 20 visits,
the number of therapy visits provided to Gentiva patients in the 6 to 9 visit range suddenly
increased from 18.9% in 2007 to 22.1% in 2008 (representing a 17% increase); the number of
Gentiva patient episodes receiving 14 visits suddenly increased from 4.0% to 4.8% (representing
a 20% increase); and the number of therapy episodes receiving 20 visits suddenly increased from
1.6% to 2.1% (representing a 31% increase).
40. The sudden and material post-2007 shift in the number of visits Gentiva’s
Medicare patients were receiving was no accident and was, in material part, driven by Gentiva’s
desire to increase revenues by taking advantage of the new 2008 therapy visit thresholds required
12
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 17 of 133 PageID #: 763
for enhanced Medicare payments. Indeed, based on its investigation, the SFC Report states:
Internal documents and e-mails show that Gentiva’s management discussed increasing therapy visits and expanding specialty programs to increase Medicare reimbursements as a result of the proposed 2008 CMS payment changes.
41. Notably, these documents and emails show how Gentiva executives were focused
on how the Company could increase revenues and margins by adapting its number of patient
visit protocols to the new CMS thresholds for enhanced payments.
42. For example, as noted in the SFC Report, on January 5, 2007, Mara Brenner,
Gentiva’s Vice-President for Government Affairs, sent Malone and Strange an email, the subject
of which was: “PPS Refinements Proposed Regulations”, that stated, in part:
Hi Ron and Tony,
FYI—We are waiting on the release by CMS of the PPS refinements proposed regulations that will include the three new therapy thresholds along with case mix changes . . .
* * *
. . . CMS officials also stated yesterday that investors and others are anxious to see the proposed regulation. . . .
* * *
At this time, the PPS refinements are not expected to be implemented until at the earliest January 2008.
43. Susan Sender, who was copied on the above email, and at the time was a Gentiva
V.P. and Chief Clinical Executive, responded to the above January 5 email that was sent to
Malone and Strange, among others, stating:
FYI—we also have an internal group . . . crunching utilization and outcomes data to determine whether revisions to our therapy protocols are clinically defensible.
44. Indeed, the SFC uncovered a Gentiva Excel spreadsheet entitled “Changes in
Profitability due to Proposed Changes in Therapy Reimbursement” that analyzed the impact of
13
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 18 of 133 PageID #: 764
the new 6, 14 and 20 visit thresholds on Gentiva profits assuming application of the new
thresholds to Gentiva patient episodes experienced between July 1 and December 31, 2006.
Tellingly, the analysis showed that if the Company did not adjust the number of patient visits to
the new thresholds the Company would experience a decrease in earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) of $4,970,810. However, the same analysis showed
that if therapy visits were “increased 2 to 4 visits to reach the 6 and 14 visit plateaus” earnings
could be increased by $8,400,880.
45. The focus by Gentiva executives on how to increase revenues and margins by
taking advantage of the new Medicare payment thresholds continued in anticipation of the
January 1, 2008 changes, as exemplified by the following email to defendant Strange (among
others) from Perri Southerland of Gentiva’s Finance Department in which Company executives
are figuring out how much more money Gentiva can make by increasing therapy visits just
enough to push the episode into the next highest Medicare reimbursement “bucket.” The
analysis was even so brash as to note how the Company could achieve higher profitability by
swapping less costly nursing services for more expensive therapy services. Notably, patient
needs are never mentioned in the analysis:
From: Sent: To: CC: Subject: Attachments:
Hi Tony:
Southerland, Perri Friday, September 07, 2007 02:49AM Strange, Tony Wollstein, Mary; Ballew, Brandon PPS refinements - Therapy analysis Therapy Analysis.xls
I have attached some analyses of the therapy episodes for Q1 of 2007. As we discussed on Tuesday, the average therapy visits for “nonSpecialty” episodes is comparable to the Gentiva Orthopedics program. This is the first summary included in the attachment.
14
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 19 of 133 PageID #: 765
I also summarized all nonLUPA episodes by the therapy groups that make up the S scores in reimbursement. For each increase in S score (or therapy bucket), the reimbursement increases between about $350 to $550. In the analysis, I increased the therapy visits by an average of two visits to determine the additional revenue from moving to the next highest therapy bucket. The lowest episodes that I added the two visits to were 4 therapy visits, since 3 visits to 5 visits would not increase reimbursement.
The third analysis is based on a point that Mary brought up in our meeting. She reported on episodes with high therapy visits, but the functional score was low. I calculated the inverse. Functional scores were high, F2 or F3, but no therapy was provided to these patients. I calculated the additional revenue if 6 therapy visits were provided to these patients with the high functional scores.
In all cases, I calculated the additional revenue on 100% of the episodes changing in the analysis. All the revenue increases are for 1 quarter only.
In summary, increasing therapy visits by an average of 2 visits per episode will increase revenue by approximately $350 to $550 per episode. Adding therapy services (6 visits) to patients with high functional needs will increase revenue by about $700 per episode. Costs will need to be controlled on these episodes (swap nursing for therapy visits), or profitability will decrease.
I hope the worksheets are self explanatory, but give me a call if further explanations are needed.
Perri Perri Southerland Finance Department Gentiva® Health Services Hoover, AL 35244 [Redacted]
(emphasis added).
46. Gentiva’s concern with providing enough visits to patients to avoid LUPAs,
regardless of patient medical needs, was also noted in the SFC Report which stated at page 18,
again citing to internal Gentiva documents, that:
There is also evidence of a direct push toward therapy thresholds in Gentiva’s internal educational materials. A presentation titled “PPS Refinements” noted “About 12% of Gentiva’s episodes have LUPA adjustments, less than five visits in the episode.” The document stated that it is “Interesting how many are at 5, could we have done one more visit??”
15
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 20 of 133 PageID #: 766
(emphasis added).
47. Even after the new visit thresholds for increased Medicare payments became
effective in early 2008, Gentiva executives were always analyzing how revenues and earnings
could be increased by adding visits to meet the new thresholds, as exemplified in the following
email in which an Area V.P. for Financial Operations asked a subordinate to provide analyses
considering the new thresholds and stated “I’d like to know what overall impact we’ll get if we
push for an increase in therapy . . .”. Notably, patients’ medical needs are not even mentioned in
the context of pushing for an increase in therapy:
From: Cavanaugh, Pete Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 2:38 PM To: Wang, Shirley Cc: Ballew, Brandon; Norlander, John Subject: PPS Therapy Impact Analysis
Hi Shirley,
Can you please go through the 2008 PPS file and tell me the total number of episodes that had at least 1 therapy visit (total therapy, not just PT), but less than 7 ? I’d like to know what overall impact we’ll get if we push for an increase in therapy, so all of those episodes times $70 would equal the cost of increasing the utilization. Then take the count of the number of episodes with 5 visits times $480, and the number of episodes with 6 visits and multiply times $500. That will get the revenue impact. Thanks, Pete
Peter M. Cavanaugh AVP Financial Operations Gentiva® Health Services KS 56213 [Redacted]
(emphasis added).
48. Pushing to get more therapy visits into an episode of care in order to increase
revenues continued throughout the Class Period and was a focus of senior Gentiva management.
Indeed, as exemplified by another email cited in the SFC Report, on January 7, 2009 Charlotte
16
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 21 of 133 PageID #: 767
Weaver, RN, PhD, a Sr. V.P. and Chief Clinical Officer of Gentiva sent an email to defendant
Strange and Beth Landry, a Gentiva V.P., stating, inter alia, that “operations did a [2 part] . . .
management assignment . . . and the 2 nd part addressed getting more therapy visits in an episode
of care.” Again, there is no mention of the medical needs of patients being part of the analysis.
49. Managers and therapists employed by Gentiva throughout the U.S. felt
consistently pressured by senior Gentiva management to increase therapy visits, regardless of
patient medical needs, in order to hit higher Medicare reimbursement thresholds. The following
email (which was cited in the SFC Report) sent to Strange on May 3, 2010 by a Gentiva Physical
Therapist and Orthopedics Director (hereafter referred to as the “Parting Comments Email”)
exemplifies the issue:
From: [Redacted] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 03:26 PM To: Strange, Tony Subject: Parting comments
Dear Tony:
As I prepare to leave after 6 years with Gentiva, I would like to share some of my thoughts and concerns. As I wasn’t sure who to send these on to and you always sated (sic) you wanted to hear from us, I am addressing them to you.
* * *
Unfortunately, I have seen many changes with Gentiva in the last few years. I see the push to treat by metrics not by what the patients need. I see dropping insurance companies because they don’t pay well enough. What this is doing is making Gentiva look like cherry pickers and instead of saying all patients will get the best care, Gentiva is saying only those who will pay us well will get good care. This is discrimination in the wors[t] sense in my book and I am not comfortable with it. I understand the need to make a profit and keep the company solvent but I don’t think this is a good way to do it. Treating by numbers is also making the clinicians feel their professional judgment is being questioned. Again, not sitting on plateaus is understandable but pushing to thresholds based on what their diagnosis is, not by what the patient needs is just wrong.
* * *
17
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 22 of 133 PageID #: 768
I feel that Gentiva has become the large corporation that is only concerned with the bottom line and not with the people who make it what it is. As such, I am going to pursue other interests and challenges as I am not comfortable working in this environment.
I wish you well with the future.
Sincerely,
[Redacted] PT Orthopedics Director Gentiva®
(emphasis added).
50. The SFC further revealed, based on its review of Gentiva documents, that
“Gentiva developed a competitive ranking system for management that served to drive therapy
visit patterns toward the more profitable thresholds.” Through Gentiva’s ranking system, known
as Key Indicator Reports , Gentiva administrators tracked several metrics, including metrics “that
would increase a region’s rank based on the percentage of therapy visits that fell in the most
profitable therapy visit range, between 7 and 20 sessions”, and on therapy visits per episode.
51. Indeed, Defendants Strange, Slusser and Potapchuk were aware that Gentiva
ranked the financial performance of areas based, in part, on these metrics. On May 5, 2010,
Gentiva executives and officers, including Defendants Strange, Slusser and Potapchuk, (as well
as senior and regional V.Ps. and directors, including those identified below in paragraphs 53-61)
were sent an email from Brandon Bellow, V.P. of Finance and Investor Relations, that identified
metrics by which Gentiva’s regions would be ranked, including “Visits Per Episode,” “%
Therapy > 20,” and “% Therapy < 7.”
3. Lead Counsel’s Investigation Corroborates the Findings of the SFC.
52. As set forth the below, Lead Counsel interviewed former Gentiva branch and
18
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 23 of 133 PageID #: 769
other managers and clinicians from across the U.S. who conveyed a similar story—that
throughout the Class Period pressure from Gentiva executives was consistently placed on staff to
provide medically unnecessary services to patients in order to increase Company revenues and
earnings. And, among other things, as detailed below, Gentiva executives specifically pressured
managers and clinicians to increase their visits to patients in order to meet the number of visit
thresholds required for bonus payments from Medicare.
53. Lead Counsel interviewed the author of the Parting Comments Email, who will
hereafter be referred to as CW 1. CW 1, a Physical Therapist, was an Orthopedics Director at
Gentiva from April 2004 until May 2010, at which time CW 1 resigned from the Company.
While employed by Gentiva as an Orthopedics Director, CW 1 played a supervisory role over the
Wilkes-Barre, PA and Port Summit, PA branch offices, including the hiring of physical
therapists, and occupational therapists, supervising approximately 8 full-time and 3 to 4 per-diem
physical therapists, and occupational therapists who worked at the aforementioned two offices,
and providing patient care. CW 1 was also involved in marketing Gentiva’s orthopedic specially
programs and services to physicians. CW 1 reported to Elizabeth Scanlon (“Scanlon”) who was
the Area V.P. for Gentiva’s Northeast Pennsylvania Region, which included approximately 6
branch offices that employed approximately 30 to 40 clinicians. Per CW 1, Scanlon reported
directly to Dan Locker (“Locker”), a Gentiva Regional V.P.
(a) CW 1 stated that throughout the Class Period, either by way of periodic meetings
and/or emails, CW 1 was subjected to pressure from Scanlon and/or Locker to increase the
number of patient visits provided by CW 1 and those CW 1 supervised in order to hit the next
highest enhanced Medicare reimbursement threshold, regardless of the patients’ medical needs.
CW1 believed that the demands and pressure to provide medically unnecessary visits to patients
19
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 24 of 133 PageID #: 770
to hit revenue targets was wrong.
(b) CW 1 also noted that monthly reports were sent to all specialty directors, such as
CW 1, as well as others including Area V.Ps. (such as Scanlon) and Regional V.Ps. (such as
Locker). Darlene Mahoney, the Regional Director of Specialties, disseminated the monthly
reports. The reports provided comparative data for all Gentiva branch offices, including data
concerning average number of patient visits per episode, patient recertification statistics and
revenue statistics. Per CW 1, the monthly reports were used as a means to pressure CW 1 (as
well as other branch managers and specialty directors) to increase visits per episode. By way of
example, CW 1 was repeatedly asked by superiors such as Scanlon and/or Locker why the
specialty practice offices CW 1 was responsible for had lower visits per episode than other
Gentiva offices reflected on the monthly reports. CW 1 stated that CW 1 knew of other program
directors who also felt they were being inappropriately pressured to have their clinicians provide
medically unnecessary visits to patients in order to meet the number of visit thresholds required
for enhanced payments from Medicare and that, like CW 1, left Gentiva because of the
“threshold pressure.”
(c) CW 1 also stated that although CW 1 gave advance notice to at least two
superiors that CW 1 was leaving the Company, at least, in part, because of what CW 1 believed
to be inappropriate pressure to provide medically unnecessary services, CW 1 was never given
an exit interview upon leaving the Company. Moreover, CW 1 stated that neither defendant
Strange, nor anyone on behalf of Gentiva, ever followed-up in any way with CW 1 concerning
the Parting Comments Email and/or the allegations made therein.
54. Lead Counsel also interviewed the Director of Gentiva’s Las Vegas, Nevada
branch office from July 2006 through April 25, 2010 and who will hereafter be referred to as CW
20
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 25 of 133 PageID #: 771
2. As Director of the Las Vegas branch (which fell under the jurisdiction of Gentiva’s Phoenix
regional office), CW 2 was responsible for overseeing day-to-day operations of that office
including supervising 7 office staff members and approximately 50 clinicians. During 2006
through approximately September 2009, CW 2 reported directly to Area V.P. Steve Sadecki
(“Sadecki”). After Sadecki’s resignation from Gentiva in approximately September 2009, CW 2
reported to Robert Koch (“Koch”) who replaced Sadecki. Both Sadecki and Koch reported to
Gentiva Regional V.P., John Aurelio (“Aurelio”) who reported to David Causby, Gentiva’s
Senior V.P. of Home Health (“Causby”), who ultimately reported to defendant Strange, the
Company’s CEO.
(a) From at least January 2010 until CW’s resignation, CW 2 felt frequently
pressured by Koch to either pressure clinicians to provide medically unnecessary visits to
patients to meet the budget projections and/or to pressure clinicians under CW 2’s supervision to
increase case mix weights assigned to patients in a way that would result in increased payments
from Medicare. And, if the clinicians would not do it, CW 2 felt pressured by Koch to review
the documentation to ensure if they needed at least some therapy or more therapy visits to
achieve budget projections. CW 2 consistently resisted Koch’s instructions, which CW 2
believed to be improper, and was consistently chastised by Koch for such challenges. Indeed, at
a Regional Gentiva meeting held in February 2010 (known internally as the “Going into the
Roar” meeting) CW 2 was approached by Koch and Aurelio and again questioned as to CW 2’s
leadership abilities. CW 2 told Koch and Aurelio that he/she was “uncomfortable” with their
request to add unnecessary therapies and patient visits. Koch then told CW 2, in the presence of
Aurelio, that CW 2 was not a leader and he didn’t like the responses to the performance
improvement plan that CW 2 submitted to him. CW 2 responded to Koch and Aurelio by stating
21
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 26 of 133 PageID #: 772
“I am not going to jail for anyone.” In April 2010, CW 2 resigned from Gentiva, primarily
because of what CW 2 believed to be undue pressure to engage in improper business practices.
(b) CW 2 was told by one other branch director in his/her territory that Koch also
“harassed” him/her.
55. CW 2’s experience, as outlined herein, was certainly not unique within Gentiva or
for CW 2’s particular region. Indeed, Lead Counsel interviewed the former Branch Director of
Gentiva’s Albuquerque, New Mexico Office (hereafter referred to as CW 3). CW 3 was the
director of this branch from 2007 through approximately August of 2010 and for approximately
6 years prior to that served as the branch’s Clinical Director. The Albuquerque office also fell
under the jurisdiction of Gentiva’s Phoenix regional office and, accordingly, CW 3, like CW 2,
reported to Sadecki until Sedacki’s resignation in September 2009, and then to Koch. Per CW 3,
Sadecki, and then Koch, had oversight responsibilities for Gentiva branches located in Arizona,
California, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Washington. CW 3 also reported to Cheri Turner
(“Turner”), Gentiva’s Regional Clinical Leader, in charge of overseeing weekly admission and
clinical reports for Gentiva offices with the Phoenix region. Turner reported to Aurelio in 2009-
2010.
(a) CW 3 believes that periodic comments made to CW 3 by Koch were intended to
put pressure on CW 3 to increase revenue for the Albuquerque branch by providing medically
unnecessary services. Moreover, beginning in the summer of 2009, CW 3 began being subjected
to criticisms from Turner by phone on virtually a weekly basis as to why the Albuquerque office
had “too many LUPAs,” why the gross margins for the office were too low and/or why the
average case mix weights for patients of the office were too low (which meant fewer therapies
and/or visits to patients). CW 3’s employment with Gentiva was terminated by Koch in August
22
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 27 of 133 PageID #: 773
2010.
56. Lead Counsel also interviewed a nurse employed by Gentiva from February 2008
through October 2009 who was the manager of Clinical Practice during that time period and will
hereafter be referred to as CW 4. As Manager of Clinical Practice, CW 4 had supervisory
responsibility for approximately 20 clinicians working out of Gentiva’s offices in Sanford and
Orlando, Florida, as well as oversight responsibilities for patient admissions and plans of care.
CW 4 reported to Nilsa Ramos (“Ramos”), Gentiva’s Area Director, as well as Michelle
Mazzonetto (“Mazzonetto”), Gentiva’s Area V.P. of Home Health. Ramos and Mazzonetto
reported to Bruce Carter (“Carter”), a Gentiva Regional V.P.
(a) CW 4 described being subjected to pressure from superiors to meet the enhanced
Medicare payment thresholds of 6, 14 or 20 visits and noted how this was often referred to
internally as “hitting the magic numbers.” In fact, during weekly teleconference calls in which
CW 4 took part, along with Ramos, Mazzonetto, Carter, as well as other Gentiva executives, call
participants discussed individual patient files and respective case mix weights and HHRG scores
for patients. During these calls CW 4 was regularly instructed by superiors to relay the message
to clinicians that “they were not putting in enough therapies,” and that they needed to increase
the number of patient visits which CW 4 interpreted to mean the provision of unnecessary
services. CW 4 was also frequently chastised by Ramos and Mazzonetto to avoid LUPAs “at all
costs” because they negatively impacted Gentiva’s bottom line. CW 4 was also consistently
pressed by the same superiors and for the same reasons, to increase the number of patient
recertifications. Indeed, at one point Ramos told CW 4 “you better have at least 4 recerts a
month . . . no ifs, ands or buts.” CW 4’s position was “eliminated” in October 2009.
57. Lead Counsel also spoke with an individual who was employed as a Compliance
23
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 28 of 133 PageID #: 774
Specialist at Gentiva from December 2002 through May 2009 and will hereafter be referred to as
CW 5. In addition to assisting with various internal audits, CW 5 was also responsible for
handling “first line screening” of incoming calls to the Company’s compliance hotline. In that
capacity, CW 5 would take notes of issues raised by callers to the hotline and forward such
issues to the appropriate person within Gentiva. CW 5 recalled receiving several calls in the
2008 to 2009 time-frame from Gentiva employees from the upstate New York area that had a
similar theme—that the clinicians felt they were being asked by management to add or provide
treatments to patients that were not needed and that at least one therapist described as “not
ethically correct.” It was CW 5’s impression from the calls that these clinicians were being
trained by Gentiva managers to add extra therapies that the clinicians did not believe were
necessary.
(a) CW 5 recalls referring the aforementioned complaints to Margo Nemet. It was
CW 5’s understanding that Margo Nemet reported to John Camperlengo, who at the time was the
Company’s Chief Compliance Officer and a Gentiva Senior V.P.
58. CW 5’s impression about clinicians being trained to add extra unnecessary
therapies was not unfounded. Indeed, Lead Counsel interviewed a nurse who worked at
Gentiva’s Binghamton, New York branch from January 2010 through September 2011 who
corroborated that Gentiva clinicians were being trained to complete patient documentation in a
way that would make patients appear medically worse-off than they actually were in order to
justify additional patient services and therefore higher Medicare payments. This nurse, who will
hereafter be referred to as CW 6 was primarily responsible for developing and implementing
home nursing programs for Gentiva patients. CW 6 reported to Becky Brown (“Brown”) a
Gentiva clinical supervisor and Terry Tichenor (“Tichenor”) a Gentiva Nursing Supervisor.
24
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 29 of 133 PageID #: 775
(a) CW 6 related that CW 6 was frequently pressured by Brown and Tichenor to
complete initial OASIS forms in a way that would result in a higher need for home health
services than a patient actually needed and would therefore result in higher payments to Gentiva
from Medicare. Moreover, CW 6 told Lead Counsel of being pressured by superiors such as
Brown and Tichenor at the preliminary evaluation of patients to always find a way to add on PT
or OT services (whether truly medically needed by the patient or not) because Medicare would
pay Gentiva more money for these services than for nursing services. CW 6 was pressured by
these same superiors to never allow for the discharge of a patient before an episode ended and
the number of visits for which Medicare paid Gentiva had been completed, regardless of whether
such visits were medically necessary and/or the patient wanted them because to do so would
result in Gentiva having to reimburse Medicare for services not provided, yet already paid for by
Medicare under the PPS.
(b) At some point in 2010 CW 6 informed the Branch Manager for the Binghamton
branch that CW 6 was uncomfortable with patient assessment and Medicare billing practice
instructions CW 6 was being pressured to comply with by Brown and Tichenor. It was CW 6’s
understanding that the Branch Manager shared such concerns and brought them to the attention
of senior Gentiva management.
59. Another former Gentiva employee interviewed by Lead Counsel (who will
hereafter be referred to as CW 7) similarly described undue pressure from Gentiva management
to provide medically unnecessary services to patients in order to increase revenues from
Medicare.
(a) Between January 2009 and August 2011 CW 7, a Registered Nurse, served as a
Manager of Clinical Practice and Branch Manager for Gentiva’s offices in Binghamton and
25
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 30 of 133 PageID #: 776
Norwich, New York. (The Norwich office opened toward the end of 2010). CW 7 had
supervisory responsibilities for approximately 8 to 10 clinicians (including nurses, OTs, PTs and
assistants) working out of the Binghamton office and approximately another 5 clinicians working
out the Norwich office. CW 7’s responsibilities included reviewing the OASIS forms prepared
by clinicians as well as their plans of care for patients. CW 7 reported directly to Joley Hine
(“Hine”), Gentiva’s Area Director of Clinical Operations, who, in turn, reported to John Ellis
(“Ellis”), Gentiva’s Regional V.P. Ellis reported for some time to Jeff Shaner (“Shaner”),
Gentiva’s V.P. of Operations for the Home Health Division and to Causby, Gentiva’s Senior
V.P. of its Home Health Division and then, in 2011, President of the Home Health Division.
(b) Throughout CW 7’s employment at Gentiva, CW 7 felt consistently pressured by
Gentiva management to engage in and, in turn, press subordinates to engage in improper conduct
that violated Medicare rules.
(c) For example, on numerous occasions Hine would ask CW 7 to improperly modify
OASIS forms in a way that would result in medically unnecessary services being provided to
patients in order to increase Medicare revenue. CW 7 was pressed by Hine to, in turn, press
clinicians under CW 7’s supervision to push for enough visits to patients to hit the next highest
enhanced Medicare payment threshold, regardless of the patients’ need or even the patients’
desire for such treatment. Indeed, CW 7 explained how, in CW 7’s view, clinicians were being
trained and advised by Gentiva management to manipulate patients, if necessary, into accepting
more care than the patient needed or wanted and were consistently admonished at periodic
meetings with Gentiva managers to always avoid situations whereby Gentiva would have to pay
money back to Medicare, such as LUPAs.
(d) By way of example, CW 7 explained how if a patient had been scheduled under a
26
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 31 of 133 PageID #: 777
plan of care for 14 visits (for which Medicare under the PPS had prepaid Gentiva a substantial
amount) and the patient wanted to discontinue receiving services after only 7 visits because
he/she was feeling better and/or did not want to remain home-bound (as required for home
healthcare under Medicare rules), Gentiva clinicians were trained and/or admonished to press the
patient to accept the 14 visits, even if it meant falsely manipulating the patient into believing
such additional visits were necessary. And this was all done so that Gentiva could increase
revenues, regardless of patients’ true medical needs and/or desires. Indeed, where a patient plan
of care fell a visit or two short of an additional Medicare reimbursement threshold, Hine would
tell CW 7 to just add another visit or two, whatever it took to hit the next enhanced payment
threshold, regardless of patient need.
(e) Similarly, CW 7 was consistently told to press subordinates to add OT or PT
services, whenever possible, regardless of patient need, because Gentiva made more money from
Medicare on such services than from nursing. Although CW 7 challenged and protested to Hine
about such instructions by saying, among other things—“if the patients don’t need it, they don’t
need it”—such protestations fell on deaf ears. And, although CW 7 would advise clinicians not
to provide medically unnecessary treatments to patients, CW 7 believes that many Gentiva
clinicians succumbed to pressures placed on them by management to do just that out of fear of
losing their jobs.
(f) CW 7 further explained how Gentiva managers and clinicians were trained to and
pressed by Gentiva executives to wrongly manipulate diagnostic codes on patient intake and
assessment forms so as to increase payments from Medicare. Indeed, as explained by CW 7,
differing diagnostic codes listed for patients resulted in differing payments from Medicare. And,
in instances where a patient’s condition was the result of multiple diagnoses, the diagnostic
27
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 32 of 133 PageID #: 778
codes were supposed to be listed on patient assessment forms in a manner that would truly
reflect, by way of example, the patient’s primary condition diagnosis, followed by secondary and
additional diagnoses. The proper listing of diagnoses, as determined by the patient’s physician,
impacted the amount of money Gentiva would be paid by Medicare. Yet, Gentiva management
would pressure clinicians and branch managers to manipulate the listed hierarchy of diagnoses
on patient intake forms in a way that would increase payments from Medicare even if the manner
in which the diagnoses were listed did not truly reflect the patient’s medical condition.
(g) The types of wrongful pressures described above were often exerted through
informal discussions between Gentiva management and branch managers and clinicians.
However, it was also exerted through and during more formal and periodic in person and/or
telephone meetings during which data listed in various periodic reports was discussed. Such
reports included Weekly Projected vs. Actual Reports and Monthly Reports sent to CW 7 by
Hine. The Weekly Projected vs. Actual Reports included numerous statistics for Gentiva
branches, including data on patient clinical scores used for reimbursement; profit percentage by
patient; the number of visits per patient projected based on plans of care used to request payment
from Medicare, versus the actual number of patient visits provided; and other data. Monthly
Reports contained similar data as well as information to assess how Gentiva branches compared
to each other for the various data points listed, including the average number of patient visits per
episode per office. The data listed in these reports was used as tool to pressure Branch Managers
to increase revenues, even if it required providing medically unnecessary services and/or
wrongly manipulating data on forms submitted to Medicare.
(h) In addition to challenging Hine on what CW 7 believed to be improper pressures
by Management, CW 7 alerted Senior Gentiva management of the wrongful conduct in other
28
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 33 of 133 PageID #: 779
ways, all to no avail. Indeed, in late 2009 or early 2010 CW 7, along with 3 other Gentiva
Branch Managers/Directors from various areas of the United States, had dinner in Georgia with
Kathleen Shanahan, a Gentiva V.P. of Human Resources. At the dinner, various concerns about
Gentiva’s business practices were raised and discussed. At one point during the dinner Shanahan
asked the others if they felt decisions by Gentiva clinicians in the field were being made based
on financial reasons rather than patient medical needs. CW 7 responded in the affirmative and
further stated that Gentiva had created an environment wherein patient care was often driven by
money as opposed to medical need. The other Gentiva Branch Managers at the dinner did not
object to CW 7’s statement and, in fact, nodded in agreement. CW 7 knows of no follow-up
from Gentiva to the comments CW 7 made to Shanahan at the dinner.
(i) Moreover, in June 2011 CW 7 called Gentiva’s internal compliance hotline to
complain about Gentiva clinicians being unduly pressured to provide patients with unnecessary
visits and/or therapies. To CW 7’s knowledge, there was no follow-up to such call.
(j) Finally, because of, in large part, CW 7’s discomfort with what CW 7 believed to
be Gentiva’s improper Medicare billing practices, CW 7 resigned from the Company in August
2011. At the time, CW 7 sent a resignation letter to Hine in which CW 7 noted that the reasons
for CW 7’s resignation included CW 7’s belief that the Company exerted continuous pressure on
employees to put finances over patient care and CW 7’s belief that patient care should not be
simply finance driven. CW 7 believes a copy of this letter was also sent to Ellis and Bruce
Reardon, another Gentiva V.P. Neither they nor anyone at Gentiva ever followed up with CW 7
with respect to the concerns CW 7 raised in CW 7’s resignation letter, nor was CW 7 ever given
an exit interview.
29
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 34 of 133 PageID #: 780
60. Lead Counsel also interviewed former Gentiva employee Holly McComas
(“McComas”) who related the following concerning herself and her experience at Gentiva.
McComas is a registered nurse who was employed by Gentiva as a case manager at its
Charleston, West Virginia branch beginning by at least 2007.
(a) In late 2009, McComas was assigned by Gentiva to work as an admissions nurse,
which involved an initial meeting with patients at their homes where the patients’ conditions
would be assessed and treatment needs determined. McComas remained in this position until
her employment with Gentiva ended on or about April 9, 2010.
(b) During these initial meetings with patients, McComas would conduct an
assessment under OASIS and complete an associated form, which included a patient’s history,
assessment of living arrangements, physical and behavioral status, medications being taken, as
well as a plan of care for the patient.
(c) The OASIS Form was used to make adjustments to the base payments made by
Medicare to Gentiva for home health services provided to Medicare beneficiaries.
(d) McComas further related that notwithstanding the fact that she was the person
who made the intake assessment, McComas was not permitted to code for the diagnoses and
treatments related to her assessments; rather, such coding was done exclusively by Ashley Beane
(“Beane”), Gentiva’s manager of clinical practice at the Charleston branch office. Ms. Beane
would determine the codes and affix a post-it note with the codes to the OASIS form, and
McComas was then required to write the codes on the form in her own handwriting. Ms. Beane
also determined the number of therapy visits that a patient would receive and directly entered
such information on the OASIS form. In many instances McComas believed she was being
required by Beane to write the codes on the forms in a manner that maximized reimbursement
30
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 35 of 133 PageID #: 781
from Medicare rather than being truly reflective of the patients’ medical conditions and/or that
the number of visits being entered on the OASIS by Beane were not medically necessary. Based
on her discussions with other nurses in the office, it is McComas’ understanding that other nurses
in the Charleston branch had similar experiences with regard to coding and/or the number of
patient visits being entered on the Medicare forms.
(e) Furthermore, per McComas, Ms. Beane would materially alter the OASIS forms
completed by McComas, and forge McComas’ initials with regard to the same. Such alterations
included the addition of unnecessary requests for occupational therapy evaluations, as well as the
strike-through or deletion of entries supporting the appropriateness of nursing care in place of
physical therapy visits.
(f) In performing her intake assessments, McComas was instructed by her immediate
supervisors, such as Beane or Roni Koch (“Koch”) (Manager of Clinical Practice) or Beth
Chambers (“Chambers”) (a clinical director) to “mark one level lower” with regard to a patient’s
physical abilities, with the aim of justifying physical therapy visits.
(g) During her tenure at Gentiva, McComas also regularly observed practices aimed
at pressuring physical therapists employed by Gentiva to continue physical therapy
notwithstanding that the patient had reached maximum medical improvement. Gentiva managers
even went so far as to destroy discharge papers submitted by physical therapists where the
discharge was being initiated prior to completion of the expected number of therapy visits.
(h) Per McComas, such practices by Gentiva and its managers were intended to and
did result in the “upcoding” of entries on the OASIS forms submitted to Medicare and otherwise
billing Medicare for therapy visits that were not medically necessary.
31
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 36 of 133 PageID #: 782
(i) McComas further related how she and other clinicians attended weekly meetings
of the Charleston branch at which comments and directives were regularly made by Beane,
Koch, Chambers and Amy Winters (“Winters”) (Director of Gentiva’s Safe Strides Program for
the Charleston office) that were interpreted by McComas and her colleagues as pressure to
provide medically unnecessary visits to patients in order to achieve enhanced Medicare
reimbursement thresholds such as the 6, 14 and 20 visit enhanced payment thresholds and/or to
recertify Medicare patients even when not medically necessary.
(j) On January 22, 2010, McComas placed a telephone call to Edwina Simpson
(“Simpson”), Gentiva’s Regional Director of Human Resources to complain about fraudulent
Medicare billing practices at Gentiva’s Charleston branch.
(k) On February 2, 2010 McComas and other employees in the Charleston branch
complained in an in-person meeting with Simpson about there being a pattern and practice of
Medicare fraud by Gentiva. McComas also complained to Simpson that someone was forging
and falsifying her initials on various nursing assessment documents to perpetuate and further the
billing fraud.
61. Lead Counsel also interviewed former Gentiva employee Kim Shah (“Shah”) who
related the following about herself and her experience at Gentiva. Shah, a Registered Nurse,
began working for Gentiva on or about February 12, 2001 as a manager of clinical practices at
the Charleston, West Virginia branch. After approximately one year, Shah was promoted to the
director of clinical practices, a position she held for four or five years. Shah was later promoted
to the position of branch director of Gentiva’s Charleston branch office, which position she
retained until her termination by the Company on March 9, 2010.
32
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 37 of 133 PageID #: 783
(a) Between 2008 and March 2010, the Charleston branch employed approximately 6
occupational therapists, including assistants, 15 physical therapists, including assistants, 15
nurses, including nurses’ aids and 3 Speech Therapists. As branch director of the Charleston
office, Shah had responsibilities that included staffing, scheduling and budgeting. Between at
least 2008 and the time of her termination, Shah reported to a Regional Manager, who, in turn,
reported to Gentiva’s Regional V.P., Pat Phillips (“Phillips”). Shah recalls that Phillips reported
to Shaner.
(b) In addition to providing home nursing and therapy services, Gentiva also delivers
home health services through “focused specialty programs.” These specialty programs included
“Gentiva Safe Strides®,” a trademarked program which provided therapies for patients with
balance issues who are prone to injury as a result of falling, as well as “Gentiva
Neurorehabilitation,” which helps patients who have experienced a neurological injury or
condition. Both of these specialty programs entail a significant number of therapy visits by
Gentiva.
(c) During her tenure at Gentiva’s Charleston branch office, Shah witnessed
Gentiva’s emphasis on therapy services in general, and its specialty programs, including Gentiva
Safe Strides® in particular. Shah did not have direct supervisory responsibility for the Gentiva
Safe Strides® program run out of the Charleston office. This program fell under the direct
supervision of Winters, who was the Safe Strides® program director. Winters reported to
Gentiva’s Regional Director of Rehabilitation, Derek Nordman (“Nordman”), who also reported
to Phillips.
(d) Shah related that Gentiva’s Charleston employees were routinely questioned by
Winters and Nordman at meetings as to why they were not providing more therapy visits to
33
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 38 of 133 PageID #: 784
patients, with managers such as Winters and Beth Chambers (Director of Clinical) often leaving
color-coded messages in therapist’s mail boxes pushing them to provide additional services to
patients. Employees were regularly told by Phillips during weekly conference calls (with
Gentiva staff from 5 offices in West Virginia and Tennessee including the Charleston office) on
which Shah, Winters and RN managers participated, that anyone over 65 needs more than 12
therapy visits, and that such therapy should be provided as a matter of course.
(e) Shah and others were concerned that medically unnecessary visits were being
ordered by Gentiva supervisors and complaints to that effect originated from Shah’s employees
in the Charleston branch. Clinicians were further regularly pressured by Winters and Nordman
to add therapy services even when patient referrals came in to the office for nursing services
only. Shah believes these pressures were exerted because Gentiva made more money from
Medicare for the provision of therapy services than for nursing. In fact, according to Shah,
Winters reviewed virtually every case for possible inclusion in the Gentiva Safe Strides®
program, and instructed or otherwise pressured physical therapists in the Charleston office to
place patients in such program notwithstanding the fact that such placement was medically
questionable, if not unnecessary. Ms. Winters appeared to have conducted these reviews and
offer these instructions at the urging of her Gentiva supervisors from outside the Charleston
branch.
(f) Moreover, according to Shah, Gentiva’s employees were routinely told by
Winters and Nordman to put patients into the Gentiva Safe Strides® program when there was
any evidence of a previous fall, even when it was questionable as to whether such therapy was
medically necessary. Shah related that her employees complained of medically unnecessary
visits for virtually every patient who had suffered a fall, even if that patient did not seem to meet
34
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 39 of 133 PageID #: 785
the medical criteria of the Safe Strides® program. According to Shah, the practice by Gentiva of
directing patients into the Gentiva Safe Strides® program resulted in Medicare being billed for
therapy visits that appeared to be medically unnecessary but were ordered by the employees in
charge of the specialty programs.
(g) Shah further related that she was regularly subjected to pressure by Phillips and
others at periodic meetings to try and get clinicians in the office to increase the number of visits
to patients to hit enhanced payment thresholds from Medicare, even if such visits were not
medically necessary.
4. The SEC is Investigating Gentiva.
62. According to Gentiva’s annual report for the year ended December 31, 2011
(“2011 10-K”), on July 13, 2010, the SEC informed Gentiva that it had commenced an
investigation relating to Gentiva’s participation in the Medicare HH PPS.
63. On July 16, 2010, Gentiva reportedly received a subpoena from the SEC
requesting certain documents in connection with its investigation.
64. According to the Company’s 2011 10-K, the SEC subpoena focused on issues
related to the number of and reimbursements received for therapy visits before and after changes
in the Medicare reimbursement system, relationships with physicians, compliance efforts,
including compliance with fraud and abuse laws, and certain documents sent to the SFC.
C. The Exchange Act Defendants’ Materially False and Misleading Statements
65. The Exchange Act Defendants’ representations were materially false and
misleading and/or omitted to disclose material facts necessary in order to make their statements
true, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading because, as
alleged in paragraphs 37-64, the Exchange Act Defendants knew, or at least recklessly
35
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 40 of 133 PageID #: 786
disregarded, that Gentiva was engaging in the following practices that violated Medicare
standards and regulations and resulted in the provision of medically unnecessary services,
including: i) providing medically unnecessary visits to patients in order to hit thresholds required
by Medicare to receive bonus payments (¶¶ 37-61); ii) wrongly “upcoding” in order to increase a
patient’s “case-mix weight” (¶¶ 53-61); iii) avoiding LUPAs by wrongly adding medically
unnecessary therapy visits (¶¶ 45-46; 55-56; 59); iv) recertifying patients for added episodes of
care even if not medically necessary (¶¶ 56-60); v) wrongfully manipulating OASIS forms to
increase reimbursement from Medicare (¶¶ 53-61); vi) wrongfully manipulating the listing of
diagnostic codes in order to generate the greatest reimbursement from Medicare, even when the
manner of listing such codes did not reflect patients’ true medical condition (¶¶ 59-60); and vii)
providing medically unnecessary services to increase Medicare reimbursement revenues and
margins. (¶¶ 37-61).
66. As a result of this wrongful conduct, the Exchange Act Defendants’
representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results, including reported increases in revenue
and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and margins per episode) and the purported
reasons behind those increases were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose that these reported figures were materially and artificially inflated as a result of the
improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement system, as alleged herein.
67. Further, the Exchange Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s
compliance practices were materially false and misleading because the Exchange Act Defendants
failed to disclose that: i) Gentiva’s compliance program was materially defective because
complaints to Gentiva executives and officers concerning the Company’s wrongful conduct were
ignored (¶¶ 49; 53-61).
36
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 41 of 133 PageID #: 787
68. Finally, the Exchange Act Defendants’ representations in SOX Certifications
were materially false and misleading because, in contrast to the representations made in these
certifications, Gentiva’s disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial
reporting were not effective as they permitted the Exchange Act Defendants to report financial
results on behalf of Gentiva that were, in material part, the product of the wrongful manipulation
of the Medicare reimbursement system and because, when signing SOX Certifications, the
Exchange Act Defendants each knew of, or recklessly disregarded, and failed to disclose the
Exchange Act Defendants’ scheme to improperly manipulate the Medicare reimbursement
system, as alleged herein.
1. Second Quarter 2008 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standards and Regulations.
69. The Class Period begins on July 31, 2008 when the Exchange Act Defendants
caused the Company to issue a press release announcing Gentiva’s financial results for its fiscal
quarter ended June 29, 2008. The July 31, 2008 press release reported “strong second quarter
results, led by double-digit increases in Medicare revenues and admissions in the Company’s
Home Health segment,” net revenues of $346.2 million, a 13% increase, a 34% rise in net
income to $12.0 million, or $0.41 per diluted share. (Unless otherwise noted in this Complaint,
comparisons of Gentiva’s financial results to past results reported by Gentiva are to comparable
periods in Gentiva’s prior fiscal year).
70. Importantly, in the July 31, 2008 press release, the Company highlighted that
growth in its Home Health segment revenues and margin was driven by Medicare revenue,
stating in part:
--Home Health segment revenues increased 16% versus the prior-year period, while operating contribution rose 27%. Home Health’s operating contribution margin reached 16.6% versus 15.2% in the second quarter of 2007 . Strong
37
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 42 of 133 PageID #: 788
Home Health Medicare revenue growth of 18% was driven by a double-digit increase in episodic patient admissions, increases in revenue per episode, due in part to the Company’s expanding specialty programs, and the impact of acquisitions completed in 2008.
(emphasis added).
71. On July 31, 2008, the Exchange Act Defendants also conducted a conference call
with investors to discuss the Company’s second quarter financial results. During this conference
call, defendant Potapchuk made the following representations concerning the “strong
momentum” of Gentiva’s Home Health segment:
On a year-to-date basis, Home Health increased almost 11%, and our growth continues to be driven primarily by two factors, the first is increased Medicare contribution to our revenues. We are continuing to execute on our strategy of moving away from lower margin payer sources and focusing more on higher-margin areas like Medicare and acceptable rate commercial programs.
Total episodic revenue for the quarter grew $32 million or about 22% with over $24 million of the increase coming from Medicare PPS. The Medicare portion is up 18% over the prior year period, improving on the 7% growth we reported in the preceding quarter. . . .
For the six months episodic revenue was up nearly 17% with Medicare growing 13% during that period. Through the six months 72% of our total Home Health revenue was paid on an episodic basis, and all but 5 percentage points of that figure was Medicare revenue. The second driver of Home Health revenue growth is our continued leadership and specialty programs. During the quarter our specialty programs comprised 31% of our total Medicare Home Health revenue compared to 28% in the first quarter of 2008 and 26% in the second quarter of last year. Both of these factors increased Medicare contribution and specialty programs growth led to improved margins.
72. Further, defendants Strange, Malone and Potapchuk made the following
representations during the question-and-answer portion of the July 31, 2008 conference call:
Sheryl Skolnick – CRT Capital Group – Analyst
I would like you to help me to understand how the training dollars that you’ve spent appear to be helping to mitigate the negative impact and maybe even to help you to optimize reimbursement under Medicare.
38
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 43 of 133 PageID #: 789
Are you at a point now where you feel that everyone is well-trained and you are capturing all the secondary diagnoses, the comorbidities as well as any later episode payments? And that your clinician familiarity with the new oasis questions and answers is optimal or is there still more improvement that we can expect?
Tony Strange – Gentiva Health Services – COO
I don’t think we are ever going to be through improving. I think we are going to constantly get better at that. I think you are referring to the roughly $1 million in training that we did in the latter part of ’07 and then Q1 of ’08. We have begun seeing some of the impact of that training. For example, I think we are doing a much better job capturing secondary tertiary diagnoses. We have seen changes in our clinical scores, in our functional scores, and those are contributing to some of the changes you’ve seen in the revenue. Perhaps in addition when we first looked at our business under the new PPS reimbursement in ’07 since that date we have shifted some of our business to some higher therapy utilization type services. For example our Safe Strides program and the specialities that we talked about. As we began getting more and more admissions related to some of our specialty programs we would expect that case mix in revenue per episode to go up even further because that is a different kind of patient requiring a different kind of service.
* * *
Douglas Tsao – Lehman Bros. – Analyst
Quick question. John [Potapchuk], I think you referred to the 12% same-store increased same-store Medicare revenues. I was just wondering you refer to a 5% increase in the number of episodes and 7% increase in revenue per episode. I was wondering if you could provide a breakdown between—of that 7% how much is due to increases in prices versus mix shift towards more specialty programs?
John Potapchuk – Gentiva Health Services – EVP, CFO, Treasurer
That number, that revenue per episode number, to break that down any further I think would be it’s pretty difficult. Because we are shifting within Medicare shifting the mix of patients and as we do more specialties there is a higher revenue per episode associated with that. We certainly year-over-year have implemented the new Medicare PPS rules, which on the surface would have suggested a reduction in rate, but again, the mix of patients is a really significant aspect here.
Ron Malone – Gentiva Health Services – Chairman, CEO
39
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 44 of 133 PageID #: 790
And from my perspective there is no rate increase. As a matter of fact, there is a rate reduction. The change in revenue per episode is not really coming from rate. It is all coming from the different kind of patient or the different level of acuity, or better capturing through this training we’ve been talking about, i.e. secondary diagnosis and those things on existing patients. But it is not coming from a rate increase per se where the base rate has changed.
Douglas Tsao – Lehman Bros. – Analyst
And as a follow-up, then, how is it to that the mix has been able to shift so quickly in this sort of really matter of one quarter?
Ron Malone – Gentiva Health Services – Chairman, CEO
It hasn’t. The mix hasn’t shifted, and I think Cheryl kind of pointed it out in her question, that the difference is that we are getting the training that we’ve done, we continue to get better at capturing appropriate clinical information. To use one example, the change in reimbursement secondary diagnoses, comorbidities actually change the clinical score of the HHRG. This training that we did is we are beginning to see that we are getting better at capturing that additional clinical information, which changed our clinical score, which changes our reimbursement pipe.
(emphasis added).
73. The representations in paragraphs 69-72 were materially false and misleading
because Potapchuk failed to disclose that the Exchange Act Defendants’ “strategy” of increasing
Medicare revenue involved pressuring Gentiva staff and clinicians to wrongfully bill Medicare
for unnecessary medical services as alleged above in paragraphs 53-61 and because the
Exchange Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results, including
reported increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and margins
per episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and
artificially inflated as a result of the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement
system, as alleged in paragraph 65.
40
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 45 of 133 PageID #: 791
74. Indeed, the Exchange Act Defendants’ representations that Gentiva’s increasing
profit margins in its Home Health segment (driven by Medicare revenues) were important to
investors and Wall Street and convinced them that Gentiva’s stock was a “buy.” By way of
example, in response to the July 31, 2008 press release, analysts at Deutsche Bank issued a
report stating, in part, as follows:
Strong 2Q affirms strength of core home health business : GTIV delivered solid upside 2Q EPS ($0.41 vs. Street $0.32) with break-out performance in its core home health segment . . . . We believe the strong admission and episodic growth experienced by the industry will continue and coupled with strong rev/episode, will lead to solid margin leverage.
75. Several days later, on August 4, 2008, in response to Gentiva’s July 31, 2008
press release, analysts at Wachovia raised their earnings estimates for Gentiva because the
Company reported higher than expected earnings that were “driven by higher than expected
revenue and margin.”
76. On August 7, 2008, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to file its
quarterly report with the SEC on Form 10-Q for its fiscal quarter ended June 29, 2008 (the “Q2
2008 10-Q”). The Q2 2008 10-Q was signed by Malone and Potapchuk, repeated the
Company’s financial results set forth in the July 31, 2008 press release and made the following
representations:
Revenues generated from Medicare were $161.3 million in the second quarter of 2008 as compared to $136.8 million in the second quarter of 2007, an increase of $24.5 million or 17.9 percent. . . . The increases in Medicare revenues, for the second quarter and first six months of 2008, resulted from (i) growth in episodes of care of 11 percent and 10 percent, respectively, driven primarily by increased volume in specialty programs in both existing and new markets; (ii) the impact of the HHCA and PHHC acquisitions as noted below; and (iii) for the second quarter of 2008, improvements in revenue per episode . Factors contributing to the improvements in the revenue per episode for the second quarter of 2008 include growth in the Company’s therapy-based Specialty programs that have a higher level of reimbursement and a shift in mix toward higher acuity cases. . . .
41
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 46 of 133 PageID #: 792
The changes in revenue mix in the Home Health segment resulted from (i) organic revenue growth in Medicare, particularly in the Company’s specialty programs, and non-Medicare PPS business and (ii) the elimination or reduction of certain low margin Medicaid and local government business and commercial business. Revenue per episode for the Company’s Home Health Medicare and non-Medicare PPS business increased by 6.3 percent to approximately $2,830 in the second quarter and 2.4 percent to approximately $2,720 for the first six months of 2008 as compared to the corresponding prior year periods, due primarily to the increase in specialty programs and services to higher acuity patients.
(emphasis added).
77. These representations were materially false and misleading because the Exchange
Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results, including reported
increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and margins per
episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and artificially inflated
as a result of the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement system, as alleged in
paragraph 65.
78. The Q2 2008 10-Q included representations that the Company was in compliance
with applicable Medicare standards and regulations:
There are certain standards and regulations that the Company must adhere to in order to continue to participate in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state healthcare programs. As part of these standards and regulations, the Company is subject to periodic audits, examinations and investigations conducted by, or at the direction of, government investigatory and oversight agencies. Periodic and random audits, conducted or directed by these agencies could result in a delay or adjustment to the amount of reimbursements received under these programs. Violation of the applicable federal and state health care regulations can result in the Company’s exclusion from participating in these programs and can subject the Company to substantial civil and/or criminal penalties. The Company believes that it is currently in compliance with these standards and regulations.
79. These representations were materially false and misleading because the Exchange
Act Defendants knew, or at least recklessly disregarded, that Gentiva was engaging in the
42
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 47 of 133 PageID #: 793
following practices that violated Medicare standards and regulations and resulted in the provision
of medically unnecessary services, including: i) providing medically unnecessary visits to
patients in order to hit thresholds required by Medicare to receive bonus payments (¶¶ 37-61); ii)
wrongly “upcoding” in order to increase a patient’s “case-mix weight” (¶¶ 53-61); iii) avoiding
LUPAs by wrongly adding medically unnecessary therapy visits (¶¶ 45-46; 55-56; 59); iv)
recertifying patients for added episodes of care even if not medically necessary (¶¶ 56-60); v)
wrongfully manipulating OASIS forms to increase reimbursement from Medicare (¶¶ 53-61); vi)
wrongfully manipulating the listing of diagnostic codes in order to generate the greatest
reimbursement from Medicare, even when the manner of listing such codes did not reflect
patients’ true medical condition (¶¶ 59-60); and vii) providing medically unnecessary services to
increase Medicare reimbursement revenues and margins. (¶¶ 37-61).
80. The Q2 2008 10-Q also included SOX Certifications signed by Malone and
Potapchuk that represented in part the following:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Gentiva Health Services, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
43
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 48 of 133 PageID #: 794
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(e) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(f) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
81. Malone’s and Potapchuk’s representations in the SOX Certifications were
materially false and misleading because in contrast to the representations made in their
certifications, Gentiva’s disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial
44
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 49 of 133 PageID #: 795
reporting were not effective as they permitted the Exchange Act Defendants to report financial
results on behalf of Gentiva that were, in material part, the product of the wrongful manipulation
of the Medicare reimbursement system and because, when signing SOX Certifications, the
Exchange Act Defendants each knew about or recklessly disregarded, and failed to disclose,
Defendants’ scheme to improperly manipulate the Medicare reimbursement system, as alleged
herein.
2. Third Quarter 2008 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standards and Regulations.
82. On October 30, 2008, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to issue a
press release announcing its financial results for its fiscal quarter ended September 28, 2008 that
reported net revenues of $347.6 million, a 12% increase, adjusted net income of $12.6 million, a
48% increase, and reported the following:
--Home Health’s 17% revenue growth to $239.3 million and 26% operating contribution growth to $38.8 million led to an operating contribution margin of 16.2%, as compared with 15.1% in the third quarter of 2007. Home Health Medicare revenue growth of more than 20% was driven by a double-digit increase in episodic patient admissions as the Company continues to benefit from both its expanding specialty programs and acquisitions completed in 2008.
83. These representations were materially false and misleading because the Exchange
Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results, including reported
increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and margins per
episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and artificially inflated
as a result the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement system, as alleged in
paragraph 65.
45
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 50 of 133 PageID #: 796
84. After the issuance of the October 30, 2008 press release on October 30, 2008
Gentiva executives held a conference call with Wall Street analysts. Again, as illustrated by the
below excerpts from the transcript of the call, analysts focused on Gentiva’s reportedly
increasing revenues per episode and high margins. Gentiva executives, however, misled such
analysts by attributing reported revenues per episode and high margins to “conservative”
business methodologies, rather than the truth—that Gentiva was providing medically
unnecessary services to patients:
Sheryl Skolnick – CRT Capital Group – Analyst
The revenue per episode growth in the third quarter I think you said was 7%, and that was significantly higher than the trends of 2.4% and 4% for the six and nine months of this year. So is that directly related to presumably the specialty programs but also better understanding and familiarity with the revenue opportunities for appropriately billing patients under the new reimbursement system?
Tony Strange – Gentiva Health Services – President, CEO
I don’t know that I would agree with the latter half of your comment, Sheryl.
Sheryl Skolnick – CRT Capital Group – Analyst
Okay.
Tony Strange – Gentiva Health Services – President, CEO
If you go back, and I’ll take you back to the first-quarter call, when we reported revenues and we gave for the first time the revenue-per-episode statistic in the first quarter, if you will recall we were very careful in telling people that the number was artificially low because as patients transitioned off of the old reimbursement system and onto the new reimbursement system, for the first time you were going to have positive therapy adjustments because CMS, even though you indicate how many therapy visits you think you’re going to do, if you do less than that they will adjust your revenue down. If you do more than that, they will adjust your revenue up, and I think I made a comment on the call that we took a very conservative approach to how we’re recognizing revenue. So as you go through the year and you get into Q2 and Q3, you begin to see some of those positive adjustments now starting to flow through as you are processing your final claim.
46
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 51 of 133 PageID #: 797
I think we do take a pretty conservative approach to how we’re booking our revenues because I don’t want a negative surprise. I don’t want to have a call and say that a large number of our claims got adjusted downward and we’re having to restate our revenue, so that’s contributing to the increase in revenue per episode.
* * *
Darren Lehrich – Deutsche Bank – Analyst
I have a couple of questions here about margins, and I just wanted to get your comments on what the gross margins were in the home health business and where you think that can go as you continue to I guess move to a more variable cost structure. And then Tony, it sounds like you’re a tad disappointed with the margin progress in the other segment, particularly hospice, so I just wanted to hear from you what you thought you needed to do to improve that and what that looks like going forward and then I’ll have a follow-up.
Tony Strange – Gentiva Health Services – President, CEO
Well, from a qualitative perspective, Darren, I’ll talk about the margins in the home health business. We’re going to continue to get margin pressure related to increase in salaries and fuel expense and just the escalation or inflation in other costs. But we’re hopeful and I believe that we’ve demonstrated that we’re going to be able to hold margins consistent through better management of productivity, the implementation of the pay per visit model, those types of initiatives. So while I don’t think if you look at our—if you look at the outlook, we’re not indicating that we’re going to have a tremendous increase in gross margins, but we’re working very diligently to protect those margins on a go-forward basis.
Darren Lehrich – Deutsche Bank – Analyst
I think, John, maybe you can provide the gross margin.
John Potapchuk – Gentiva Health Services – CFO
Yeah, sure. Sure, Darren. Our gross margin in home healthcare for the quarter was 51.9% . . . going forward that the margin we’ll report will be very much in proximity to the home health margins.
Tony Strange – Gentiva Health Services – President, CEO
So kind of going back to my qualitative comment, when you look at—call it a 52% gross margin, we’re not projecting that number is going to continue to climb and go to the 55% or 56% or 59%, but we’re also not expecting to experience a significant climb from that related to wage pressures and fuel costs and those kind
47
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 52 of 133 PageID #: 798
of things. We have enough going in both directions that our hope is to hold that steady.
(emphasis added).
85. Strange’s and Potapchuck’s representations were materially false and misleading
because the Exchange Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results,
including reported increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and
margins per episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and
artificially inflated as a result of the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement
system, as alleged in paragraph 65.
86. Once again, Wall Street analysts reacted favorably to Gentiva’s reported results
and the Exchange Act Defendants’ false representations convinced Wall Street analysts and
investors that Gentiva’s stock was a “buy,” in material part, due to Gentiva’s purported margin
growth.
87. For example a Jefferies & Company, Inc. report on Gentiva dated October 30,
2008 noted, inter alia, that Gentiva’s reported earnings for 3Q08 “exceeded consensus by
$0.07.” Under the heading “Key Points” the same report noted “Q3 results were nothing short of
impressive, as GTIV benefited from dynamic growth in its higher-margin Medicare home
nursing basis . . . .”
88. Similarly, on the same date, Deutsche Bank issued a report on Gentiva
highlighting that based on the Company’s reported financial results, Gentiva’s reported earnings
beat Wall Street’s estimates due, in part, to “continued margin improvement in home health.”
89. On November 7, 2008, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to file its
quarterly report with the SEC on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 28, 2008 (the
48
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 53 of 133 PageID #: 799
“Q3 2008 10-Q”). The Q3 2008 10-Q, signed by Malone and Potapchuk, repeated the
Company’s financial results set forth in the October 30, 2008 press release and made the
following representations:
Revenues generated from Medicare were $165.2 million in the third quarter of 2008 as compared to $137.1 million in the third quarter of 2007, an increase of $28.1 million or 20.5 percent. . . . The increases in Medicare revenues, for the third quarter and first nine months of 2008, resulted from (i) growth in episodes of care of 11 percent and 10 percent, respectively, driven primarily by increased volume in specialty programs in both existing and new markets and the impact of the HHCA and PHHC acquisitions as noted below; and (ii) increases in revenue per episode of approximately 8 percent for the third quarter of 2008 and 5 percent for the first nine months of 2008. Factors contributing to the improvements in the revenue per episode for the third quarter of 2008 include growth in the Company’s therapy-based Specialty programs that have a higher level of reimbursement and a shift in mix toward higher acuity cases. . . .
The changes in revenue mix in the Home Health segment resulted from (i) organic revenue growth in Medicare, particularly in the Company’s specialty programs, and non-Medicare PPS business and (ii) the elimination or reduction of certain low margin Medicaid and local government business and commercial business. Revenue per episode for the Company’s Home Health Medicare and non-Medicare PPS business increased by 8.4 percent to approximately $2,900 in the third quarter and 4.3 percent to approximately $2,780 for the first nine months of 2008 as compared to the corresponding prior year periods, due primarily to the increase in revenues from specialty programs and services to higher acuity patients. . . . These changes contributed to an overall increase in gross margin with the Home Health segment from 50.4 percent in the third quarter of 2007 to 51.9 percent in the third quarter of 2008 and from 50.2 percent for the first nine months of 2007 to 51.7 percent for the first nine months of 2008.
(emphasis added).
90. These representations were materially false and misleading because the Exchange
Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results, including reported
increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and margins per
episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and artificially inflated
49
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 54 of 133 PageID #: 800
as a result of the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement system, as alleged in
paragraph 65.
91. The Q3 2008 10-Q included representations that the Company was in compliance
with applicable Medicare standards and regulations that were virtually identical to the
representations alleged above in paragraph 78.
92. These representations were materially false and misleading for the reasons set
forth above in paragraph 79.
93. The Q3 2008 10-Q contained SOX Certifications by Malone and Potapchuk that
were virtually identical to the certification referred to above in paragraph 80.
94. Malone’s and Potapchuk’s representations in the SOX Certifications were
materially false and misleading because, in contrast to the representations made in their
certifications, Gentiva’s disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial
reporting were not effective as they permitted the Exchange Act Defendants to report financial
results on Gentiva’s behalf that were, in material part, the product of the wrongful manipulation
of the Medicare reimbursement system.
3. 2008 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standards and Regulations.
95. On February 18, 2009, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to issue a
press release announcing its financial results for the fiscal quarter and year ended December 28,
2008. Gentiva reported 20% revenue growth and 39% operating contribution growth from
Gentiva’s Home Health segment in its fourth quarter. For the twelve months ended December
28, 2008, Gentiva reported, net revenues of $1.30 billion versus $1.23 billion in the prior year,
and adjusted net income of $45.5 million, up 33% compared with $34.3 million in the year-ago
period.
50
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 55 of 133 PageID #: 801
96. These representations were materially false and misleading because the Exchange
Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results, including reported
increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and margins per
episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and artificially inflated
as a result the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement system, as alleged in
paragraph 65.
97. Also, in the February 18, 2009 press release Strange made the following
representations:
We achieved our results both for the fourth quarter and all of 2008 while focusing on two key objectives: delivering clinical excellence to a more acute patient population and positioning our Company as the employer of choice for clinicians. . . . During the fourth quarter we continued the launch of innovative specialty care programs across our branch network and again achieved strong performance in the hiring of new clinicians. Gentiva will continue to address the needs of the nation’s growing senior population, for which home healthcare is a cost-effective and patient-preferred solution for the nation's healthcare challenges.
98. Strange’s representations were materially false and misleading because Gentiva
was not addressing the medical “needs” of patients, but rather, as alleged above in paragraphs
37-61, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva clinicians, employees and staff, in violation
of Medicare standards and regulations, to provide medically unnecessary visits to patients in
order to hit thresholds required by Medicare to receive bonus payments, as well as provided
patients with medically unnecessary services.
99. On February 18, 2009, Defendants conducted a conference call with investors
during which Wall Street analysts questioned Strange and Potapchuk about Gentiva’s reported
increase in “revenue per episode” and margins:
John Potapchuk – Gentiva Health Services, Inc. – EVP and CFO
51
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 56 of 133 PageID #: 802
What we indicated, Ralph, is the revenue per episode—again this is the quarter— was up 13% to 13.5% and the volume same-store was in the kind of middish single digits, 6% or so.
Ralph Giacobbe – Credit Suisse – Analyst
All right, that’s helpful. And then you mentioned I guess 33% of your Medicare Home Health revenue was from the specialty programs. Is that right?
John Potapchuk – Gentiva Health Services, Inc. – EVP and CFO
Correct.
Ralph Giacobbe – Credit Suisse – Analyst
Then I guess what percentage of your admissions have a therapy visit associated with it?
John Potapchuk – Gentiva Health Services, Inc. – EVP and CFO
Right now we are up to about two-thirds of the episodes.
* * *
John Ransom – Raymond James – Analyst
John, you had mentioned that your 4Q revenue per episode was $3040 versus $2850 for the year. What explains this higher number in the fourth quarter versus the full year?
John Potapchuk – Gentiva Health Services, Inc. – EVP and CFO
Well, let me start. We mentioned earlier, John, about the increasing use of therapy that 67% of our episodes now involve therapies. And that certainly with respect to our specialty programs is a driver of that increase.
Tony Strange – Gentiva Health Services, Inc. – President and CEO
And the other thing it’s not just that we are doing more therapy on the same patient. As a matter of fact to the contrary, as we roll out these specialty programs, a lot of these specialty programs really bring us a higher level of acuity in the patients that we are serving. And those patients for example coming out of rehab settings or coming out of skilled nursing facilities are more acute patients demanding a higher level of service, and that’s really what is changing the mix. That’s really what is changing that revenue for episode.
52
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 57 of 133 PageID #: 803
John Ransom – Raymond James – Analyst
And so how much of the 13% growth for episode is higher acuity versus technical changes in the new 2008 version of the HHRGs?
Tony Strange – Gentiva Health Services, Inc. – President and CEO
The majority of it (multiple speakers) it’s really changing the mix in the kind of patients that we have been taking—that we are taking care of.
* * *
Pito Chickering – Deutsche Bank – Analyst
Two quick questions here. Back into the EBITDA margin guidance from the EPS, it looks as if at 11% EBITDA margin, I was curious here want for cost-cutting measures you had taken since the third quarter sort of in order to get to sort of that margin level?
Tony Strange – Gentiva Health Services, Inc. – President and CEO
I don’t know that it’s all in cost cutting. And if you go back and remember one of our goals is to continue to change our mix, I think John [Potapchuk] mentioned that 77% of our revenues today came from an episodic reimbursement or an episodic basis. That number if our plans all work as we hope, that number will continue to increase over 2009. That in and of itself will help drive—will help improve gross margin.
100. Strange’s and Potapchuk’s representations were materially false and misleading
because the Exchange Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results,
including reported increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and
margins per episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and
artificially inflated as a result of the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement
system, as alleged in paragraph 65.
101. Also on the February 18, 2009 conference call, Wall Street analysts questioned
Strange and Potapchuk about Gentiva’s recertifications:
53
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 58 of 133 PageID #: 804
Sheryl Skolnick – CRT Capital Group – Analyst
Then my follow-up is can—clearly your episodic—your number of episodes is greater than your admissions. Can you just—I know this is a big question to end the call with—but can you just give us a sense of what’s happening with your certifications within the business? Is there really—with the specialty programs, do you note that re-certifications within specialty programs are significantly higher than they would be in sort of normal course of Home Health business? And what the average number of episodes is for patients that you treat? And how that’s changed?
Tony Strange – Gentiva Health Services, Inc. – President and CEO
Sheryl, let me give you—let me use one example to tell you about that. Our newest specialty, one of our newest specialties that we’ve launched is the neurorehabilitation program. The typical profile of the patient that enters into the program is a post-CVA patient. That patient is going to be on our service longer than a patient who is—has just had his knee replaced and is working his way back onto the golf course.
And so to answer your question broadly, as we bring out more and more of these highly sophisticated specialty programs related to senior health, related to neurorehabilitation, we would expect length of stay to increase specific to those pictures. Our length of stay for our joint replacement for example, that number is not going to go up. So as those programs become mature, I would expect that length of stay to go up. As it relates to your question of the average length of—
average episodes per patient—
John Potapchuk – Gentiva Health Services, Inc. – EVP and CFO
Yes, Sheryl, I did give the statistical information and when you go through the math, for the year we were at episodes per admit of 1.4 and for the fourth quarter was 1.44. So it hadn’t changed remarkably.
102. These representations were materially false and misleading because as alleged
above in paragraphs 56 and 60, the Exchange Act Defendants, in violation of Medicare
regulations and standards, caused Gentiva clinicians, employees and staff to recertify patients for
additional episodes of care regardless of patients’ medical needs in order to increase revenue.
103. The Exchange Act Defendants’ materially false and misleading representations
once again convinced analysts to comment favorably about Gentiva’s revenue and margin
54
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 59 of 133 PageID #: 805
growth, rating Gentiva a “buy.” Jefferies & Company, Inc. noted management’s “progress with
its strategy of repositioning GTIV into higher margin Medicare home nursing” and stated that it
expected “sustained, solid organic growth and further margin expansion in the company’s home
nursing segment.”
104. Meanwhile, Deutsche Bank maintained Gentiva’s “buy” rating “based on
continued earnings leverage from specialty home health programs and margin expansion.”
Deutsche Bank analysts also noted that Gentiva’s “rev growth was driven by double digit
increases in episodes in the home health division as GTIV has been focusing its efforts to serve
higher acuity patients.”
105. On March 12, 2009, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to file its
annual report with the SEC on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2008 (the
“2008 10-K”). The 2008 10-K, signed by Malone, Strange, and Potapchuk, repeated the
Company’s financial results set forth in the February 18, 2009 press release and made the
following representations touting Gentiva’s revenue, income and margins:
Revenues generated from Medicare were $648.0 million during fiscal 2008, an increase of 18.0 percent as compared to $549.2 million in fiscal 2007. Medicare revenues represented approximately 69 percent of total Home Health revenues in the 2008 fiscal year as compared to 67 percent of total Home Health revenues in the 2007 fiscal year.
The increases in Medicare revenues resulted from (i) growth of 11 percent in episodes of care driven primarily by increased volume in specialty programs in both existing and new markets and the impact of the HHCA and PHHC acquisitions; and (ii) increases in revenue per episode of approximately 7 percent. Factors contributing to the improvements in the revenue per episode include growth in the Company’s therapy-based specialty programs that have a higher level of reimbursement and a shift in mix toward higher acuity cases. Medicare revenue growth, excluding the impact of HHCA and PHHC acquisitions, was approximately 13 percent. As a percentage of total Home Health Medicare revenues, Medicare revenues derived from the Company’s specialty programs were approximately 31 percent in 2008 and 26 percent in 2007.
55
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 60 of 133 PageID #: 806
106. These representations were materially false and misleading because the Exchange
Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results, including reported
increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and margins per
episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and artificially inflated
as a result of the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement system, as alleged in
paragraph 65.
107. The Exchange Act Defendants repeated representations about the Company’s
compliance with Medicare standards and regulations:
Government Regulations
The Company’s business is subject to extensive federal, state and, in some instances, local regulations . . .
The Company’s compliance with these regulations may affect its participation in Medicare . . . . For example, to participate in the Medicare program, a Medicare beneficiary must be under the care of a physician, have an intermittent need for skilled nursing or physical or other therapy care, must be homebound and must receive home healthcare services from a Medicare certified home healthcare agency. The Company is also subject to a variety of federal and state regulations which prohibit fraud and abuse in the delivery of healthcare services. These regulations include, among other things . . . . laws against the filing of false claims . . . .
There are certain standards and regulations that the Company must adhere to in order to continue to participate in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state healthcare programs. . . . The Company believes that it is currently in compliance with these standards and regulations.
108. These representations were materially false and misleading because as alleged
above in paragraph 65, the Exchange Act Defendants, in violation of Medicare regulations and
standards, caused Gentiva clinicians, employees and staff to recertify patients for additional
episodes of care regardless of patient medical needs in order to increase revenue as well as to
provide medically unnecessary services to patients.
56
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 61 of 133 PageID #: 807
109. The 2008 10-K contained SOX Certifications by Strange and Potapchuk that were
virtually identical to the certification referred to above in paragraph 80.
110. Strange’s and Potapchuk’s representations in the SOX Certifications were
materially false and misleading because, in contrast to the representations made in their
certifications, Gentiva’s disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial
reporting were not effective as they permitted Gentiva to report financial results that were, in
material part, the product of the wrongful manipulation of the Medicare reimbursement system.
4. First Quarter 2009 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standards and Regulations.
111. On April 30, 2009, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to issue a press
release announcing its financial results for the fiscal quarter ended March 29, 2009 that reported
net revenues of $288.9 million, which was an increase of $45 million or 18% when revenues
from CareCentrix (sold on September 25, 2008) were excluded, and adjusted net income of
$12.7 million, an increase of 61%.
112. The April 30, 2009 press release highlighted Home Health’s 19% revenue growth
to $257.7 million and operating contribution growth of 39% to $43.2 million.
113. Also in the April 30, 2009 press release Defendant Strange represented that
“Gentiva is off to a good start to 2009, both financially and operationally . . . . Our results for the
quarter were again led by our Home Health segment as we focus on meeting the needs of the
nation’s growing senior population, for which home healthcare is a cost-effective and patient-
preferred solution.”
114. On April 30, 2009, the Exchange Act Defendants conducted a conference call
with investors to discuss the Company’s first quarter 2009 earnings, during which Strange and
Potapchuk made the following representations:
57
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 62 of 133 PageID #: 808
Tony Strange – Gentiva Health Services – CEO, President
Our core Home Health business continued to lead the way for Gentiva in Q1. Home Health revenues were up 19% in the first quarter compared to last year to $258 million, that’s also sequentially higher than the $249 million that we reported for the fourth quarter.
* * *
John Potapchuk – Gentiva Health Services – CFO
Gentiva’s first-quarter results are highlighted by the strong overall financial performance from our core Home Health business and the continued successful execution of our growth strategy. . . . Total episodic revenue for the quarter grew by 29% to over $202 million with about $186 million of that amount relating to Medicare PPS . The growth in episodic revenue was driven by double-digit increases in both number of episodes and revenue per episode, about 4 percentage points of the growth in episodic revenue resulted from the impact of acquisitions completed during the year 2008.
During the quarter 78% of our total Home Health revenue was paid on an episodic bases compared with 72% in the prior year period. All but 6 percentage points of the 78% figure was Medicare revenue. . . .
Revenue per episode was about $3,030, up about 16% compared to the prior year period. The increase in revenue per episode between the 2008 and 2009 first quarters resulted from the continuing shift in mix toward higher acuity patients and a very conservative view for the revenue recognition in the initial months following revisions to the Medicare reimbursement system implemented in January 2008.
* * *
John Ransom – Raymond James – Analyst
Just looking at your numbers it’s implied that maybe your recertification rate is starting to move up a little bit. Is that the case or is there something we’re missing?
John Potapchuk – Gentiva Health Services – CFO
On a percentage basis, yes, it’s moving up a little bit. But I think, John, when I look at—one statistic I look at is episodes per admission, for the quarter I believe that was 1.42. And when I go back over the last year, year and a half it’s been hovering around that 1.4 mark.
58
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 63 of 133 PageID #: 809
Tony Strange – Gentiva Health Services – CEO, President
That was a quantitative response to your question. A qualitative response is that as we roll out—as we roll out these additional specialty programs, specifically within senior health and within the neuro rehabilitation program, that patient, that patient profile, that CVA patient, that patient is going to stay on our service longer because of the acuity levels of the patient. So as we get those programs rolled out it wouldn’t surprise me if that number were to eke up a little bit, but we don’t expect massive changes in it anytime soon.
(emphasis added).
115. The representations in paragraphs 111-14 were materially false and misleading
because the Exchange Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results,
including reported increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and
margins per episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and
artificially inflated as a result of the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement
system, as alleged in paragraph 65.
116. On May 8, 2009, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to file its
quarterly report with the SEC on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended April 4, 2009 (the “Q1
2009 10-Q”). The Q1 2009 10-Q was signed by Strange and Potapchuk, repeated the
Company’s financial results set forth in the April 30, 2009 press release and made the following
representations:
Revenues generated from Medicare were $186.1 million in the first quarter of 2009 as compared to $145.1 million in the first quarter of 2008, an increase of $41.0 million or 28.2 percent . . . .
Net revenues from the combination of Medicare and non-Medicare PPS business paid at episodic rates were $202.2 million in the first quarter of 2009, an increase of 29.4 percent from $156.2 million in the first quarter of 2008. Total episodes of care approximated 66,700 in the first quarter of 2009, an increase of approximately 12 percent from the 59,700 episodes serviced in the first quarter. The increase in episodes of care was driven primarily by increased volume in
59
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 64 of 133 PageID #: 810
specialty programs in both existing and new markets and the impact of the HHCA and PHHC acquisitions as noted below. Revenue per episode for the first quarter of 2009 was $3,030, an increase of about 16 percent from revenue per episode of $2,610 in the first quarter of 2008. Factors contributing to the improvements in revenue per episode for the first quarter of 2009 include growth in the Company’s therapy-based specialty programs that have a higher level of reimbursement, and a shift in mix toward higher acuity cases. Episodic revenue growth, excluding the impact of HHCA and PHHC acquisitions, was approximately 25 percent for the first quarter of 2009. . . .
The changes in revenue mix in the Home Health segment resulted from (i) organic revenue growth in Medicare, particularly in the Company’s specialty programs, and the non-Medicare PPS business and (ii) the elimination or reduction of certain low margin Medicaid and local government business and commercial business, including pediatric services and other business in home health branch offices that were sold in the first quarter of 2009. These changes contributed to an overall increase in gross margin within the Home Health segment from 50.8 percent in the first quarter of 2008 to 52.1 percent in the first quarter of 2009.
117. These representations were materially false and misleading because the Exchange
Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results, including reported
increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and margins per
episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and artificially inflated
as a result of the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement system, as alleged in
paragraph 65.
118. The Exchange Act Defendants repeated the representations about the Company’s
compliance with Medicare standards and regulations as alleged above in paragraph 78.
119. The representations were materially false and misleading for the reasons set forth
above in paragraph 79.
120. The Q1 2009 10-Q contained SOX Certifications by Strange and Potapchuk that
were virtually identical to the certification referred to above in paragraph 80.
60
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 65 of 133 PageID #: 811
121. The representations were materially false and misleading for the reasons set forth
above in paragraph 81.
122. On June 17, 2009, Gentiva participated in the Jefferies Healthcare Conference .
During the Management Discussion Section with Jefferies & Company analyst Arthur I.
Henderson, defendant Potapchuk made the following representations about Gentiva’s financial
results and the Company’s potential for growth:
On the EBITDA front, you see where we’ve gone from a little over $30 million of EBITDA in 2005, up to close to 117 in 2008. I will point out that all of these results for consistency purposes include the CareCentrix business. . . . Our EBITDA percentages, you see that more than doubling over a period of time. And then our operating cash flow has been very strong, we’ve more than tripled over that four-year period. So good strong financial results and good continued growth. . . .
[O]ur revenue growth has really been driven by our home health segment. And that home health growth is really driven by episodic revenue, both Medicare and Medicaid Advantage is paid at episodic rates. You see that up 29% year-over-year. That growth, it’s a combination of both volume and increase in revenue per episode. Volume, most of that comes from same-store growth. Overall I’d say roughly 4% of that 12% growth in volume is the full-year impact or full period impact of acquisitions that we’ve completed.
The increases in revenue per episode 7% for the year ’08 and 16% in the first quarter, it’s really driven by continued focus on higher acuity patients and that’s particularly the specialty programs. I would point out though that the 16% in the first quarter I think is artificially high given the fact that the first quarter of ’08 was the first quarter where we had a change in Medicare reimbursement and it was a particularly conservative view on revenue recognition back then and so a word there is certainly wouldn’t expect that 16% to continue at that pace throughout the remainder of the year.
123. These representations were materially false and misleading because the Exchange
Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results, including reported
increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and margins per
episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and artificially inflated
61
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 66 of 133 PageID #: 812
as a result of the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement system, as alleged in
paragraph 65.
5. Second Quarter 2009 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standards and Regulations.
124. On July 30, 2009, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to issue a press
release announcing its financial results for the fiscal quarter ended June 28, 2009 that reported
net revenues of $298.1 million, an increase of $33 million, or 12% (when excluding CareCentrix
revenue) and adjusted net income of $17.5 million, an increase of 43% compared with the prior
year period.
125. Defendant Strange made the following representations in the July 30, 2009 press
release:
Gentiva had a very good second quarter driven by continued success in executing our core strategies: rolling out our specialty programs, serving the needs of higher acuity seniors and increasing both the capacity and productivity of our growing clinician base. . . . Our performance demonstrates the commitment of our employees as well as the growing belief of the healthcare community in the power of home care as a key part of the solution to the nation’s healthcare challenges.
126. On July 30, 2009, the Exchange Act Defendants also conducted a conference call
with investors during which Strange and Potapchuk made the following representations:
John Potapchuk – Gentiva Health Services – CFO
I am very pleased with Gentiva’s recent operating and financial performance. . . This earnings performance is the end of result of solid execution of the business strategy that we have been discussing on earnings calls for some time now.
These business strategies include the following . . . growing revenue for services provided to the geriatric population, with a particular emphasis on expanding the penetration of our innovative specialty programs . . . expanding our margins by operating efficiently and leveraging our corporate and administrative infrastructure in serving nearly 400 branches in 39 states . . . .
Let me start with our first strategy relating to growing revenue with a focus on serving the needs of the geriatric population. For the 2009 second quarter, net
62
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 67 of 133 PageID #: 813
revenues were just over $298 million, representing sequential growth of over $9 million from the 2009 first quarter and revenue growth of over $33 million or $12.3% compared with the second quarter of 2008.
However, when we examine revenues from services primarily to the geriatric population we see even higher growth rates. For example, home heath episodic revenues were over $213 million in the 2009 second quarter, an increase of about $38.6 million or 22% compared to the prior year second quarter. . . .
Let’s take a closer look at the major component of our revenue mix, home health episodic revenue. Episodic revenue now represents 80% of total home health revenues, up significantly from 73% in the 2008 second quarter and 78% of the total in the first quarter of this year. In addition, as a percentage of our Medicare home health revenues, revenues from specialty programs represented nearly 38% in the 2009 second quarter, compared to 31% in the second quarter of last year and 35% in the 2009 first quarter.
I’ll now review some of the underlying data that is supporting our home health episodic revenue growth. During the second quarter, there were about 46,600 admissions on an episodic basis, more than a 5% increase from the same period last year. Total episodes in the second quarter were approximately 67,600. This represented an increase from the second quarter of last year of nearly 10% of which 1% resulted from acquisitions and 9% resulted from same store growth.
Revenue per episode was about $3,160, up 12% from the prior year period. The increase in revenue per episode resulted from the continuing shifting mix towards higher acuity patients driven by the significant growth in our specialty programs. .
However, we were able to increase our margins during the current quarter due to several factors including the following. The favorable change in our revenue mix that I just discussed . . . .
* * *
Sheryl Skolnick – CRT Capital Group – Analyst
. . . [Y]ou’ve done extremely well taking a company, Tony, that was not really participating in Medicare programs and obviously perhaps to its profitability detriment, its growth detriment, and its patient service detriment, and clearly turned it around in terms of—with your members of management and the Board.
And you are now in a situation where you are very nicely healthily profitable and growing—growing rather nicely Medicare-oriented company, both in terms of hospice and home care . . . .
63
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 68 of 133 PageID #: 814
Tony Strange – Gentiva Health Services – CEO, President
I’m making no apologies for the performance of our Company. I’m proud of our results. I’m proud of our employees, this group of people who have executed flawlessly against our strategy. And I’ll make no apologies to anybody about how our Company has performed. As it relates to the latter part of that, the demand for our services is increasing. And you can’t legislate that away. The senior population is the fastest growing segment of our population today. . . .
[T]he demand is going to be here and it’s a cost-effective alternative to hospitalization. So I go back and not apologizing for our growth. Matter of fact, I will tell you that our growth is—we’ve not seen what our growth is going to be yet. I believe that the growth in this industry will accelerate over the next decade. And I plan on being here and being part of that.
127. The representations in paragraphs 124-26 were materially false and misleading
because the Exchange Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results,
including reported increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and
margins per episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and
artificially inflated as a result of the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement
system, as alleged in paragraph 65.
128. Gentiva’s second quarter results beat analyst expectations. In fact, Jefferies &
Company, Inc. was surprised by the “magnitude of the company’s EPS beat” and credited
Gentiva’s good Q2 results to Gentiva’s focus on “revenue growth and margin expansion.” The
Jefferies & Company, Inc. report noted that margins benefited in part from Gentiva’s specialty
program rollout and rated Gentiva a “buy.”
129. On August 7, 2009, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to file its
quarterly report with the SEC on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 28, 2009 (the “Q2
2009 10-Q”). The Q2 2009 10-Q was signed by Strange and Potapchuk, repeated the
64
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 69 of 133 PageID #: 815
Company’s financial results set forth in the July 30, 2009 press release and made the following
representations:
The Company’s episodic revenues grew at 22.1 percent and 25.6 percent for the second quarter and first six months of 2009, respectively. . . .
Factors contributing to the improvements in revenue per episode for the second quarter of 2009 include growth in the Company’s therapy-based specialty programs that have a higher level of reimbursement, and a shift in mix toward higher acuity cases. Episodic revenue growth, excluding the impact of recent acquisitions, was approximately 21 percent for the second quarter of 2009 and 23 percent in the first six months of 2009.
In the second quarter and first six months of 2009, Medicare and non-Medicare PPS revenues as a percent of total Home Health revenues were 80 percent and 79 percent, respectively, as compared to 74 percent and 73 percent for the corresponding periods in 2008. In the second quarter and first six months of 2009, revenues from specialty programs as a percent of total Medicare Home Health revenues were 38 percent and 36 percent, respectively, as compared to 31 percent and 30 percent, respectively, for the corresponding periods of 2008. . . .
The changes in revenue mix in the Home Health segment resulted from (i) organic revenue growth in Medicare, particularly in the Company’s specialty programs, and the non-Medicare PPS business, and (ii) the elimination or reduction of certain low margin Medicaid and local government business and commercial business, including pediatric and adult hourly services and other business in home health branch offices that were sold in the first quarter of 2009. These changes contributed to an overall increase in gross margin within the Home Health segment from 52.3 percent in the second quarter of 2008 to 53.4 percent in the second quarter of 2009 and from 51.6 percent for the first six months of 2008 to 52.8 percent for the first six months of 2009.
130. These representations were materially false and misleading because the Exchange
Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results, including reported
increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and margins per
episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and artificially inflated
as a result of the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement system, as alleged in
paragraph 65.
65
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 70 of 133 PageID #: 816
131. The Q2 2009 10-Q repeated the representation that Gentiva was in compliance
with Medicare standards and regulations as alleged above in paragraph 78.
132. These representations were materially false and misleading for the reasons set
forth above in paragraph 79.
133. The Q2 2009 10-Q contained SOX Certifications signed by Strange and
Potapchuk that were virtually identical to the certification referred to above in paragraph 80.
134. Strange’s and Potapchuk’s representations in the SOX Certifications were
materially false and misleading because, in contrast to the representations made in their
certifications, Gentiva’s disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial
reporting were not effective as they permitted Gentiva to report financial results that were, in
material part, the product of the wrongful manipulation of the Medicare reimbursement system.
6. Third Quarter 2009 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standards and Regulations.
135. On October 29, 2009, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to issue a
press release announcing its financial results for the fiscal quarter ended September 27, 2009 that
reported net revenues of $295.6 million, an increase of $25 million, or 9% (excluding revenue
from CareCentrix) and adjusted net income of $15.9 million, an increase of 27% compared with
the prior year period. The press release highlighted revenue growth of 9% to $261.4 million and
operating contribution growth of 7% to $41.4 million in the Company’s Home Health segment.
136. Defendant Strange made the following representations in the October 29, 2009
press release:
Growth trends in both our Home Health and Hospice business units remain solid as we intensify our focus on serving the needs of the nation’s growing high-acuity senior population. We are delivering on the key initiatives that will grow our company, including increasing the penetration of our specialty care programs,
66
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 71 of 133 PageID #: 817
recruiting and retaining the best caregivers in the business, and operating efficiently, with a strong balance sheet.
137. On October 29, 2009, the Exchange Act Defendants also conducted a conference
call with investors during which Strange and Potapchuk made the following representations:
Tony Strange – Gentiva Health Services – CEO & President
Gentiva had a good quarter, right in line with our expectations. Excluding CareCentrix, revenues were for the quarter were approximately $296 million, up 9% over prior year; and EBITDA was $32 million, up 25% over prior year. The Company continues to experience double-digit growth in our core business, resulting in a strong cash flow.
In addition, we continue to strengthen our balance sheet with cash in excess of $120 million, and we’ve reduced our leverage ratio to under 1.8 times.
Our largest segment, Home Health, produced solid results for the quarter. Home Health episodic revenues for the quarter were $210 million, up 17.5% over prior year.
* * *
John Potapchuk – Gentiva Health Services – EVP, CFO & Treasurer
As Tony [Strange] has indicated, Gentiva’s third-quarter performance was in line with our expectations and puts us in a good position to achieve our full-year 2009 financial goals. . . .
Let’s take a closer look at the major component of our revenue mix, Home Health episodic revenue. Episodic revenue is now approaching 81% of total Home Health revenues, up significantly from 75% in the 2008 third quarter.
In addition, as a percentage of our Medicare Home Health revenues, revenues from specialty programs represented nearly 38% in the 2009 third quarter, compared to 32% in the third quarter of last year.
I’ll now review some of the underlying data that is supporting our Home Health episodic revenue growth. During the third quarter, there were about 46,100 admissions on an episodic basis, an increase of over 6% from the same period last year. Total episodes in the third quarter were approximately 66,700. This represented an increase from the third quarter of last year of about 8.5%, most of which related to same-store growth.
67
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 72 of 133 PageID #: 818
Revenue per episode in the 2009 third quarter was about $3160, also up about 8.5% from the prior-year period, and relatively flat on a sequential basis with the revenue per episode reported in second quarter. The increase in revenue per episode from the prior-year period resulted from the continuing shift in mix toward higher acuity patients, driven by the significant growth in our specialty programs.
* * *
Darren Lehrich – Deutsche Bank – Analyst
. . . John, you’ve also been sharing gross margin numbers with us by segment, if you could please do that for us. . . .
John Potapchuk – Gentiva Health Services – EVP, CFO & Treasurer
On the gross margins, Darren, if you look at our Home Health segment, we were at 52%. And again, the prior quarter, the second quarter was 53.5%. And I talked earlier about the impact of things like PPO and that sort of thing, which bring that down seasonally in the third quarter.
Sheryl Skolnick – Pali Capital – Analyst
Good morning, and you may not be aware, but the House just unveiled their plan with the public option and the millionaire tax. So if we’re lucky, some of us on the call may, in fact, pay more taxes. But that isn’t my question. Tony, if you said it—actually, I’m going to lump a few things in. I apologize, but if you said it at the beginning of the call I missed it.
Did you give an estimate of what the impact on the home health industry revenue would be for Medicare under the House version as contemplated over the last 24 hours, kind of thinking about $500 million in cuts over (inaudible) billion dollars in cuts over 10 years? And that’s question number one.
Question number two is more of a detailed question. John, did you say—I think you said over 19 visits per episode for this year. Can you give me the specific number again and then compare it to last year, because I checked the transcript and I didn’t see it for last year?
And then can you give me a sense of why it is that the—and I suspect it’s up significantly—why it is that Gentiva’s business is moving more towards that 19, more towards that 20, which is the next sort of step-up in reimbursement in the rehab function, if you will, of the new reimbursement scheme?
I’m a little bit concerned about what that means, quite frankly; whether we’re not sort of seeing a bit of—I mean there is nothing illegal about it, there is nothing
68
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 73 of 133 PageID #: 819
inappropriate about it. We’ll talk about focus on patients who can optimize your reimbursement and, therefore, optimize your performance.
And then the final question is as we look at your completed episodes or your total episodes in the quarter versus your admissions, for last year I think I calculated 1.42 as the ratio, and this year 1.44 or 1.45. Is that a good proxy for recertification in the quarter? And if it isn’t, can you walk me through how we can understand what they are?
Tony Strange – Gentiva Health Services – CEO & President
. . . I did not comment specifically what that meant to Gentiva nor what that meant to the quote/unquote average home health agency. There is some variability in that, so I didn’t—I don’t think I made a comment specifically what that could mean to Gentiva. At this point, we’re just not signing up for that program.
The second question was about the 19 visits per episode. I want to make sure that I clarify that, because you made a kind of an intuition that that was related to therapy. And that 19 visits per episode are all visits, including skilled nursing, home health aides, social workers, on and on. Your question about what it was a year ago, that number was about 17 a year ago, and has increased to about 19 today.
The third or fourth part of your question was why the increase. And you’ve heard both John [Potapchuk] and I talk about the continuing rolling out of our specialty programs, which really are targeted toward a higher acuity patient. So as we expand specialties, and I think John mentioned in his comments that specialities now represents 38% of our revenues.
And as we continue to expand those specialty programs and develop new specialties, we will expect to see the—we could expect to see the visits per episode continue to slightly tick up. That doesn’t mean that that’s all in therapy. We’ve not really commented about the mix of our business as to what could be rehab or not, so I think that addresses all of those questions.
The last component, part D of your four-part question, was the total episodes, and really talking about our episodes per admit. And I think that is a good way to look at the back side of recertifications, and our number has typically been about in the 1.4 to 1.5. John, do you have that number for this quarter?
John Potapchuk – Gentiva Health Services – EVP, CFO & Treasurer
Yes, year-to-date is 1.44. The third quarter was 1.45.
Tony Strange – Gentiva Health Services – CEO & President
69
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 74 of 133 PageID #: 820
So we’ve kind of stayed in line if you look at the inverse of the recertification number.
John Potapchuk – Gentiva Health Services – EVP, CFO & Treasurer
Right.
Sheryl Skolnick – Pali Capital – Analyst
Okay, that’s very helpful. And I guess since you haven’t broken down your revenues to therapy or non-therapy, I could push you and say please do it. I’m not sure what that would get me, though.
I guess what I’m really asking is how nervous should we be from an enforcement or industry oversight perspective that you and others are moving your visits up and going after more acute patients which clearly is a legitimate business strategy. But in going after more acute patients and—but at the same time getting that bump-up in reimbursement for the 20th visit.
And from an oversight perspective, what I’m worried about is in the different administration with a different viewpoint perhaps, looking at that askance rather than looking at that and saying this is just simply good business practice.
Tony Strange – Gentiva Health Services – CEO & President
Well, I can’t comment on the mental health of most people. It’s all I can do to take care of my own. I can tell you how comfortable I am. And it starts with some of the investments that we’ve made. I think if you go back a little over a year ago, we brought in Dr. Charlotte Weaver to head up our clinical programs. And with her hand on the throttle, I feel very comfortable that everything that we are doing is clinically appropriate.
In addition to that, I think that one of the things that really separates Gentiva from our competitors is our compliance program. And John Camperlengo is the Chief Compliance Officer for Gentiva, and he has probably got 40 people that work in his area . . . So between the development and the implementation of our clinical protocols from Dr. Weaver’s perspective, as well as the checks and balances that we get from John Camperlengo and our compliance staff, I sleep really good at night.
(emphasis added).
138. The representations in paragraphs 135-37 were materially false and misleading
because the Exchange Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results,
70
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 75 of 133 PageID #: 821
including reported increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and
margins per episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and
artificially inflated as a result of the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement
system, as alleged in paragraph 65.
139. On October 29, 2009, analysts at Deutsche Bank commented favorably about
Gentiva’s “solid” third quarter results, noting that the Company’s home health episodic revenue
growth “continue[d] to be fueled by specialty programs.” Deutsche Bank maintained Gentiva’s
“buy” rating and raised the Company’s price target from $27 to $28.
140. On November 6, 2009, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to file its
quarterly report with the SEC on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 27, 2009 (the
“Q3 2009 10-Q”). The Q3 2009 10-Q was signed by Strange and Potapchuk, repeated the
Company’s financial results set forth in the October 29, 2009 press release and stated, in part, the
following:
The Company’s episodic revenues grew at 17.5 percent and 22.7 percent for the third quarter and first nine months of 2009, respectively. . . .
Factors contributing to the improvements in revenue per episode for the third quarter of 2009 include growth in the Company’s therapy-based specialty programs that have a higher level of reimbursement, and a shift in mix toward higher acuity cases. Episodic revenue growth, excluding the impact of recent acquisitions, was approximately 17 percent for the third quarter of 2009 and 21 percent in the first nine months of 2009.
In the third quarter and first nine months of 2009, Medicare and non-Medicare PPS revenues as a percent of total Home Health revenues were 81 percent and 80 percent, respectively, as compared to 75 percent and 74 percent, respectively, for the corresponding periods in 2008. In the third quarter and first nine months of 2009, revenues from specialty programs as a percent of total Medicare Home Health revenues were 38 percent and 37 percent, respectively, as compared to 32 percent and 30 percent, respectively, for the corresponding periods of 2008. . . .
71
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 76 of 133 PageID #: 822
The changes in revenue mix in the Home Health segment resulted from (i) organic revenue growth in Medicare, particularly in the Company’s specialty programs, and the non-Medicare PPS business, and (ii) the elimination or reduction of certain low margin Medicaid and local government business and commercial business, including pediatric and adult hourly services and other business in home health branch offices that were sold in the first quarter of 2009. These changes contributed to an overall increase in gross margin within the Home Health segment from 51.9 percent and 51.7 percent in the third quarter and for the first nine months of 2008, respectively, to 52.0 percent and 52.5 percent in the third quarter and first the first nine months of 2009, respectively.
141. These representations were materially false and misleading because the Exchange
Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results, including reported
increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and margins per
episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and artificially inflated
as a result of the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement system, as alleged in
paragraph 65.
142. The Q3 2009 10-Q repeated the representation that Gentiva was in compliance
with Medicare standards and regulations as alleged above in paragraph 78.
143. These representations were materially false and misleading for the reasons set
forth in paragraph 79.
144. The Q3 2009 10-Q contained SOX Certifications by Strange and Potapchuk that
were virtually identical to the certification referred to above in paragraph 80.
145. The representations in the SOX Certifications were materially false and
misleading for the reasons set forth above in paragraph 81.
146. On January 27, 2010, Potapchuk made the following representations at the
Jefferies Global Healthcare Services Conference :
72
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 77 of 133 PageID #: 823
[T]he average revenue per episode is a little over $3,000 on a 60-day basis. . . . [W]e’re all about growth, growth in both organically and through acquisition. . . . When you look at the growth in episodic revenue, again that 23% is broken down fairly evenly at this point in terms of volume, the meaning—that’s up, you see on the bottom, the 10% year-to-date, and increases in revenue per episode. That revenue per episode increase is really driven by the fact that we continue to change our mix, really driven by the specialty programs, into those services that, where we’re reimbursed at higher levels. . . .
147. On February 18, 2010, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to issue a
press release announcing its financial results for the fiscal quarter and year ended January 3,
2010 and reported net revenues for 2009 of $1.15 billion, an increase of $144 million or 14%
(excluding the revenue from CareCentrix) and net income of $59.2 million or $1.98 per diluted
share.
148. Also in the February 18, 2010 press release, Strange represented:
Gentiva finished 2009 with strong fourth quarter results, and we have set the stage for solid growth in 2010 as well. . . . We have done that by executing on core strategic initiatives and narrowing our focus to our home health and hospice operations. We enter 2010 with a business that is performing well and a strong balance sheet that gives us the financial flexibility to invest both internally and externally in initiatives that will further solidify our industry leadership.
149. In addition, Gentiva announced its financial outlook for fiscal 2010 in the
February 18, 2010 press release:
The Company expects net revenues will range between $1.23 billion to $1.26 billion and adjusted net income on a diluted earnings per share basis will range between $2.57 and $2.67. Gentiva’s outlook is consistent with the past several years of strong episodic revenue growth in the Home Health business. Revenue growth in 2010 is expected to be driven primarily by organic volume growth and expansion of the Company's innovative specialty programs.
150. On February 18, 2010, the Exchange Act Defendants also conducted a conference
call with investors during which Strange and Potapchuk made the following representations:
Tony Strange – Gentiva Health Services, Inc. – President, CEO
73
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 78 of 133 PageID #: 824
Perhaps the most impressive result for 2009 is the improvement in margin . We have done a good job in translating top-line growth into profitability. For 2009, our EBITDA margin is 11% compared to 9% in 2008, further demonstrating our ability to leverage operating overhead as we continue to focus our resources on our core home health and hospice operations. I am proud of the discipline that our team has demonstrated, and I am confident in our ability for further improvement. . . .
Based on these priorities and the business plans that have been developed, we expect our episodic revenues to continue to grow by double digits.
* * *
John Potapchuk – Gentiva Health Services, Inc. – EVP, CFO, Treasurer
To put this point in perspective, in comparing the 2009 and 2008 fourth quarters, home health episodic revenues increased over 23% to $235.6 million , and hospice revenues increased nearly 16% to $19.7 million, while Gentiva’s remaining revenues decreased by 7% to less than $55 million.
Revenue per episode in the 2009 fourth quarter was approximately $3190, up 4.3% from the prior-year period and up about 1% on a sequential basis. The increase in revenue per episode resulted from the continued shift in mix toward higher acuity patients, driven by the significant growth in our specialty programs.
For 2009, episodic admissions were 190,300, up about 8% on a weekly basis. Episodes were 274,200, up about 10% on a weekly basis. And revenue per episode was about $3140, also up about 10% as compared to the prior year.
Gentiva is successfully executing on its business strategy of organically growing services to the geriatric population, building the capacity and productivity of our dedicated clinicians and enhancing its clinical outcomes and operating systems.
* * *
Unidentified Participant
[I]n terms of your guidance for 2010, could you just maybe give us a sense of kind of what is embedded within that guidance in terms of margins, and kind of how you guys are thinking about just the margin ramp going into this year?
John Potapchuk – Gentiva Health Services, Inc. – EVP, CFO, Treasurer
Certainly we’ve talked about double-digit episodic growth, so would continue to have strong volumes in that business. From a margin standpoint, we finished the
74
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 79 of 133 PageID #: 825
year at 11%, and I think it is fair to say that the expectation is that those margins would overall increase by somewhere in excess of 100 basis points.
* * *
Brian Tanquilut – Jefferies – Analyst
Looking at the revenue guidance range, you did $310 million of revenue in Q4. If you annualize that, it gets us $1.24 billion. Just wondering what drives the revenue from the top end to the low end of the guidance range.
John Potapchuk – Gentiva Health Services, Inc. – EVP, CFO, Treasurer
. . . So we are reflecting from that run rate, if you will, growth of somewhere between $70 million and $100 million. And as we said before, really driven by the episodic revenue growth. . . .
* * *
Ralph Giacobbe – Credit Suisse – Analyst
Just wanted to go back to sort of margin and your margin profile. With you becoming (technical difficulty) a pure play home nursing and hospice, is there any reason to think that you can’t ultimately get your margins up to levels where some of your peers are? Or is there anything in the model that would prevent that?
Tony Strange – Gentiva Health Services, Inc. – President, CEO
I think what I talked about on the call was that when I made the reference to in 2008, we were at 9% EBITDA, and then in 2009, we were at 11% and I think John made it in one of his remarks already as well, that we expect that to continue to improve.
In terms of referencing other people’s margin, you know more about their business than I do, and I can’t comment on theirs. But I think with steady reimbursement as we know it today, that we will continue to see margin expansion in 2010 and ’11, based on current reimbursement methodologies .
(emphasis added).
151. On March 9, 2010, Defendant Potapchuk made the following representations at
the Raymond James Institutional Investors Conference :
[W]e are all about growth . . . . Getting into our core strategies, you can see up here that there are five that I’d like you to understand and come away with in
75
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 80 of 133 PageID #: 826
terms of Gentiva. First of all about growth, growing our revenue focused on the geriatric population. You do that through increasing your episodic business within home health and also increasing your Hospice revenue. . . .
[W]hat’s really important to note is the episodic home health revenue. . . . [T]hey each grew by over 20%. . . . From a statistical basis, you can see that our episodic volume grew by 10% for the year, 11% in the fourth quarter . . . .
You can see that in the fourth quarter of 2009, that representing 81% of our home health revenue. Two years prior to that there was little over 70% of our revenue and I will point out, while it’s not on the chart, if you go back two years before that to 2005, it was less than half of our revenue was reimburse on an episodic basis. We’ve done a lot over the last number of years to significantly change our mix of business.
I mentioned earlier our specialty programs and they clearly have been a driver of our revenue growth and continued expansion possibilities. We introduced the first specialty program, which is Gentiva Orthopedics, back in 2003, and have added a number of different programs that you see in right on the bottom of this slide over a period of—of number of years. . . .
So we continue to grow by rolling out these programs to more branch locations. We certainly have growth possibilities within the programs that we have opened today and in the—our clinical corporate group are working on new programs to be rolled out in the future. So clearly going to continue to be a source of our growth. And again, this slide quickly shows what happened relating to those specialties over a two-year period, where within our Medicare home health revenue, two years ago specialties were 28% of our—of that revenue component; today it’s running at 42% of our home health Medicare revenue. So significant growth in those couple of years.
152. The representations in paragraphs 146-51 were materially false and misleading
because the Exchange Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results,
including reported increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and
margins per episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and
artificially inflated as a result of the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement
system, as alleged in paragraph 65.
76
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 81 of 133 PageID #: 827
7. 2009 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standards and Regulations.
153. On March 17, 2010, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to file its
annual report with the SEC on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2010 (the “2009
10-K”). The 2009 10-K was signed by Strange, Potapchuk, and Malone, repeated the
Company’s financial results set forth in the February 18, 2010 press release and represented that
Gentiva’s “episodic revenues grew 22.9% during fiscal 2009” and revenue per episode was
$3,160, an increase of 10.9% and that “[f]actors contributing to the improvements in revenue per
episode for fiscal 2009 include growth in the Company’s therapy-based specialty programs that
have a higher level of reimbursement, and a shift in mix toward higher acuity cases.”
154. These representations were materially false and misleading because the Exchange
Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results, including reported
increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and margins per
episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and artificially inflated
as a result of the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement system, as alleged in
paragraph 65.
155. The 2009 10-K repeated the representations that Gentiva was in compliance with
Medicare standards and regulations as alleged above in paragraph 78.
156. These representations were materially false and misleading for the reasons set
forth above in paragraph 79.
157. The 2009 10-K contained SOX Certifications by Strange and Potapchuk that were
virtually identical to the certification referred to above in paragraph 80.
77
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 82 of 133 PageID #: 828
158. Strange’s and Potapchuk’s representations in the SOX Certifications were
materially false and misleading for the reasons set forth above in paragraph 81.
159. On May 4, 2010, Defendant Strange made the following representations at the
Deutsche Bank Securities Health Care Conference :
When you look at that margin expansion, the real driver behind that margin expansion is the change in mix. As you can see from this slide that 81% of our revenues now are really—in our Home Health segment are derived from episodic reimbursement. And that’s really driving the margin improvement. . . . If you look at the growth in our Specialties, back in ’07, 28% of Home Health revenues for Medicare came from our Specialties. Today that number is in excess of 42%.
160. These representations were materially false and misleading because the Exchange
Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results, including reported
increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and margins per
episode) and the purported reasons were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose that these reported figures were materially and artificially inflated as a result of the
improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement system, as alleged in paragraph 65.
8. First Quarter 2010 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standards and Regulations.
161. On May 6, 2010, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to issue a press
release announcing its financial results for the fiscal quarter ended April 4, 2010 that reported net
revenues of $297.1 million, an increase of 7.5%, adjusted income from continuing operations of
$19.7, an increase of 53% and net income of $9.3 million.
162. In the May 6, 2010 press release, Strange represented “Gentiva’s solid first
quarter performance was driven by patient admission growth of more than 10% and improving
profitability as we continue to narrow our strategic focus to our home health and hospice
operations . . . .”
78
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 83 of 133 PageID #: 829
163. Further, in the May 6, 2010 press release Gentiva “reaffirmed its outlook for
fiscal 2010 full-year net revenues in a range of $1.23 billion to $1.26 billion and raised its
outlook for adjusted net income from continuing operations on a diluted earnings per share basis
to between $2.67 and $2.75 as compared to prior guidance of between $2.57 and $2.67.”
164. On May 11, 2010, Defendant Strange made the following representations at the
Bank of America Merrill Lynch Healthcare Conference :
When you look underneath the payer mix of that growth, and I think this is significant, if you go back ever further, if you go back to the 2005, early 2006, the episodic business represented less than 50% of our business and today our episodic care represents 83% of our business. So, the company has done a really good job of changing that payer mix over the past several years.
165. The representations in paragraphs 161-64 were materially false and misleading
because the Exchange Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results,
including reported increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and
margins per episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and
artificially inflated as a result of the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement
system, as alleged in paragraph 65.
166. On May 13, 2010, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to file its
quarterly report with the SEC on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended April 4, 2010 (the “Q1
2010 10-Q”). The Q1 2010 10-Q was signed by Strange and Potapchuk and repeated the
Company’s financial results set forth in the May 6, 2010 press release and stated, in part, the
following:
The Company’s episodic revenues grew 13.0 percent for the first quarter of 2010. . . . Episodic revenue growth, excluding the impact of acquisitions completed in 2009 and the first quarter of 2010, was 11 percent for the first quarter of 2010 compared to the corresponding period of 2009. . . .
79
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 84 of 133 PageID #: 830
Growth in episodes was driven by an increase in admissions of more than 10 percent, from 46,900 admissions in the first quarter of 2009 to 51,600 admissions in the first quarter of 2010. There were approximately 1.4 episodes for each admission during both the 2009 and 2010 first quarter periods. Factors contributing to the improvements in revenue per episode for the first quarter of 2010 include growth in the Company’s therapy-based specialty programs that have a higher level of reimbursement, and shift in mix toward higher acuity cases.
The changes in revenue mix in the Home Health segment resulted from (i) organic revenue growth in Medicare, particularly in the Company’s specialty programs, and the non-Medicare PPS business, and (ii) the elimination or reduction of certain low margin Medicaid and local government business and commercial business, including pediatric and adult hourly services and other business in home health branch offices that were sold in the first quarter of 2009. These changes contributed to an overall increase in gross margin within the Home Health segment from 52.2 percent in the first quarter of 2009 compared to 53.2 percent in the first quarter of 2010.
167. These representations were materially false and misleading because the Exchange
Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results, including reported
increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and margins per
episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and artificially inflated
as a result of the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement system, as alleged in
paragraph 65.
168. The Q1 2010 10-Q repeated the representations that Gentiva was in compliance
with Medicare standards and regulations as alleged above in paragraph 78.
169. These representations were materially false and misleading for the reasons set
forth above in paragraph 79.
170. The Q1 2010 10-Q contained SOX Certifications by Strange and Potapchuk that
were virtually identical to the certification referred to above in paragraph 80.
80
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 85 of 133 PageID #: 831
171. Strange’s and Potapchuk’s representations in the SOX Certifications were
materially false and misleading for the reasons set forth above in paragraph 81.
9. Second Quarter 2010 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standards and Regulations.
172. On July 20, 2010, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to issue a press
release that disclosed the Company’s financial results for the fiscal quarter ended July 4, 2010
that reported net revenue of approximately $297 million, an increase of 4% and adjusted income
from continuing operations of approximately $22.6 million, an increase of approximately 26%.
173. The July 20, 2010 press release represented the following concerning Gentiva’s
full-year 2010 outlook:
Gentiva reaffirmed its 2010 full-year outlook for adjusted income from continuing operations of $2.67 to $2.75 on a diluted share basis. However, in light of recent softness in home health episodic volumes and the anticipated seasonality in third quarter volumes as experienced by the Company historically, Gentiva has reduced its full-year revenue guidance to a range of $1.20 billion to $1.23 billion from its prior guidance of between $1.23 billion to $1.26 billion. The outlook for adjusted income from continuing operations excludes the costs of restructuring, legal settlements and merger and acquisition activities, the results of discontinued operations and the impact of pending the future acquisitions.
(emphasis added).
174. The representations in paragraphs 172-73 were materially false and misleading for
the reasons set forth above in paragraph 65 and because Gentiva’s reduced guidance and
“softness in home health episodic volumes” was, in truth, the result of the Exchange Act
Defendant curtailing their wrongful conduct in response to scrutiny by regulators.
175. On July 21, 2010, the Exchange Act Defendants conducted a conference call with
investors. In light of the Senate Finance Committee investigation and revelations of that the SEC
was investigating Gentiva (which was disclosed on July 13, 2010), Wall Street analysts were
concerned about the impact of the investigations on Gentiva’s business and specifically whether
81
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 86 of 133 PageID #: 832
they would negatively affect Gentiva’s proposed acquisition of Odyssey. Despite knowing, or at
least recklessly disregarding the conduct alleged above in paragraph 65, including accusations
made in the Parting Comments Letter dated May 2010, Defendant Strange downplayed the
investigation as “distractions,” denied that the investigations had or would have a negative
impact on the Company’s business, and specifically denied that the Company engaged in
improper upcoding:
Tony Strange
But I think we’ve said in our comments that we’re confident in our ability to close [the Odyssey transaction] and we are moving forward, and these are just—think I refer to them as distractions in the SEC probe of the industry and Senate Finance probe and those types of things, but we are moving [to] close. . . .
Sachin Shah
Okay. Just one last question. You mentioned distractions. Do you foresee any more distractions between now and the closing of the merger? Is there anything else that we should know or something that is unexpected that is known in the industry that might come up between now and closing?
Tony Strange
Let me restate your question. Is there anything that I don’t know about today that I should know about in the future. You know, and the answer is nothing that I know of.
Sachin Shah
Okay, so the SEC Senate Finance Committee, the CMS financing, that is left on the table; there is nothing else that we should expect coming from the industry— regulations, investigations, etc.—about the Company’s industry and for that matter, the completion of the deal?
Tony Strange
And let me restate what I said. Nothing that we are aware of . . . . But with that, I don’t have a crystal ball any more than anybody else on this call does. But there is nothing that I know of that would impede us from closing this transaction just as we had planned. . . . I think the SEC has been thoughtful in their approach, and as John said, we will cooperate fully as we have done with the Senate Finance
82
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 87 of 133 PageID #: 833
Committee, and we will help them in any way we can. We don’t really view this as something that is negative for us. We are proud of the services that we provide and proud of the information that we will give them.
* * *
Sheryl Skolnick
Yes, because I think that trying to control CMS administratively, yes, that’s a stopgap measure but it still doesn’t get the industry out from under the cloud of— I will say the word—are they upcoding; is the industry upcoding, which is essentially what CMS is saying. . . .
Tony Strange
I don’t think the industry at large is practicing at anything that could be considered upcoding. I really do believe that the patients that we are taking care of are coming to us sicker and sicker with higher acuity levels and comorbidities, and that they really are in need of that care at home.
(emphasis added).
176. Strange’s representations were materially false and misleading because he knew,
or at least recklessly disregarded, that Gentiva was providing medically unnecessary services in
violation of Medicare standards and regulations as alleged above in paragraphs 37-61, and
specifically that Gentiva was wrongly “upcoding” in order to increase a patient’s “case-mix
weight” and thereby wrongfully increased the amount of reimbursement from Medicare (¶¶ 53-
61).
177. On July 29, 2010, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to issue a press
release concerning the Company’s financial results for the quarter ended July 4, 2010 that
reported net revenues of $297.1 million, an increase of 4%, and net income of $18.9 million or
$0.62 per diluted share compared to $17.1 million or $0.59 per diluted share in the second
quarter of 2009.
83
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 88 of 133 PageID #: 834
178. In the July 29, 2010 press release Strange represented that “Gentiva had a good
second quarter that featured continued strong growth in Hospice, improved operating margins
and solid execution as we managed through somewhat softer Home Health episodic volumes . . .
.”
179. Also on July 29, 2010, the Exchange Act Defendants conducted a conference call
with investors during which Strange made the following representations:
Revenue per episode for the period was approximately $3,280, up 3.3% from the prior-year period. The increase in revenue per episode is attributable to the continued shift in mix towards higher acuity patients as our specialty programs continue to expand, as well as increased rates related to the 2010 Market Basket update. . . . The gross margin improvements in Home Health were driven by a favorable change in revenue mix. . . .
180. The representations in paragraphs 177-79 were materially false and misleading
because the Exchange Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results,
including reported increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and
margins per episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and
artificially inflated as a result the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement
system, as alleged in paragraph 65.
181. Also on the July 29, 2010 conference call Strange made the following
representations:
We also believe we have a robust compliance program that we believe is best-of-class. In my short time with Gentiva I have come to appreciate the regulatory scrutiny that this industry is under; but I am confident in Gentiva’s commitment to continue to operate our business with the highest levels of operating, financial, and regulatory integrity.
182. These representations were materially false and misleading for the reasons set
forth above in paragraph 65 and because Gentiva’s compliance program was not “best-of-class”
84
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 89 of 133 PageID #: 835
and was not “robust.” Indeed, by this point in time, not only had Strange received the Parting
Comments Email, to which there was apparently no response, but numerous other Gentiva
employees and managers throughout the country had expressed concerns to Company Human
Resource, Compliance and other executives about chronic pressure being placed on them to
violate Medicare standards and regulations. (¶¶49; 53-61).
183. Following Gentiva’s July 29, 2010 press release and conference call, Jefferies &
Company, Inc. published an analyst report stating, in part, as follows:
We remain very bullish on GTIV given the company’s solid and expanding margin profile . . . . [T]he company’s robust Q2 gross margin (+180 bps Q/Q on flat revenues) gives us increased confidence that the company is well-positioned for operating and financial outperformance once volume growth re-accelerates. Mgmt’s comments about volume trend improvement in June and July coupled with their expectation for a bounceback in volumes in 2H10 leads us to believe that GTIV can easily meet or beat its earnings guidance and investor expectations
184. On July 30, 2010, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to file its
quarterly report for the quarter ended July 4, 2010 (“Q2 2010 10-Q”) that repeated the financial
results reported in the July 29, 2010 press release. The Q2 2010 10-Q was signed by Strange and
Slusser and made the following representations:
The Company’s episodic revenues grew 7.2 percent and 10.0 percent for the second quarter and first six months of 2010. . . . Episodic revenue growth, excluding the impact of acquisitions completed in 2009 and the first six months of 2010, was 5 percent and 8 percent, respectively for the second quarter and first six months of 2010 compared to the corresponding periods of 2009. . . .
Growth in episodes was driven by an increase in admissions of more than 4 percent, from 46,600 admissions in the second quarter of 2009 to 48,600 admissions in the second quarter of 2010 and by more than 7 percent, from 93,500 admissions in the first six months of 2009 to 100,250 admissions in the first six months of 2010. There were approximately 1.4 episodes for each admission during the second quarter and first six months of both the 2009 and 2010 periods. Factors contributing to the improvements in revenue per episode for the second quarter and first six months of 2010 include (i) growth in the Company’s therapy-based specialty programs that have a higher level of reimbursement, (ii) a shift in
85
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 90 of 133 PageID #: 836
mix toward higher acuity cases, (iii) a 3.0 percent add-on to Medicare payments for services to patients in rural areas effective April 1, 2010 in which the Company generated approximately 20 percent and 22 percent of its episodic revenue during the second quarter and first six months of 2010, respectively, and (iv) a 2.0 percent market basket update for Medicare home health payments effective January 1, 2010. . . .
The changes in revenue mix in the Home Health segment resulted from (i) organic revenue growth in Medicare, particularly in the Company’s specialty programs, and the non-Medicare PPS business, and (ii) the elimination or reduction of certain low margin Medicaid and local government business and commercial business, including pediatric and adult hourly services and other business in home health branch offices that were sold in 2009. These changes contributed to an overall increase in gross margin within the Home Health segment from 53.6 percent and 52.9 percent in the second quarter and first six months of 2009 compared to 55.2 percent and 54.2 in the second quarter and first six months of 2010.
185. The representations in paragraphs 183-84 were materially false and misleading
because the Exchange Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results,
including reported increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and
margins per episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and
artificially inflated as a result of the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement
system, as alleged in paragraph 65.
186. The Q2 2010 10-Q repeated the representations that Gentiva was in compliance
with Medicare standards and regulations as alleged above in paragraph 78.
187. These representations were materially false and misleading for the reasons set
forth above in paragraph 79.
188. The Q2 2010 10-Q contained SOX Certifications by Strange and Slusser that were
virtually identical to the certification referred to above in paragraph 80.
86
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 91 of 133 PageID #: 837
189. Strange’s and Slusser’s representations in the SOX Certifications were materially
false and misleading because, in contrast to the representations made in their certifications,
Gentiva’s disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting were
not effective as they permitted Gentiva to report financial results that were, in material part, the
product of the wrongful manipulation of the Medicare reimbursement system.
190. On September 16, 2010 Defendant Strange made the following representations at
the Stifel, Nicolaus & Company Healthcare Conference :
So we’ve been working with Senate Finance Committee, we engaged them early on in the process. We’ve now sent over 300,000 pages of documentation to the Senate Finance Committee. We’ve been engaged back and forth with helping to understand that information. If you look at the inquiry, the first half of the inquiry is related to therapy utilization, the second half of the inquiry is related to relationship between the company and its referral sources. In both cases if you look at our utilization patterns in ’07 and ’08 compared to ’08 and ’09 there is virtually no change in the utilization pattern. So we feel very comfortable about that.
(emphasis added).
191. These representations were materially false and misleading for the reasons set
forth above in paragraph 65 and because, in stark contrast to Strange’s representations about
Gentiva’s utilization policies, the SFC concluded that based on Gentiva’s own documents there
was a statistically significant shift in the Company’s utilization patterns after changes to the PPS
system in 2008 that reflect the Exchange Act Defendants’ efforts to cause Gentiva employees,
staff and clinicians to wrongfully increase therapy visits and expand specialty programs, and
thereby increase Medicare reimbursements, without regard to patient medical needs. (¶ 65).
10. Third Quarter 2010 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standards and Regulations.
192. On November 9, 2010, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to issue a
press release reporting its financial results for the quarter ended October 3, 2010. The November
87
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 92 of 133 PageID #: 838
9, 2010 press release reported total net revenues of $387.8 million, an increase of 38% compared
to $281.2 million for the quarter ended September 27, 2009, and adjusted EBITDA of $54.9
million in the third quarter of 2010, an increase of 80%.
193. Gentiva also reported in the November 9, 2010 press release that, including the
impact of the closing of the Odyssey transaction, the Company expected full-year 2010 net
revenues to be in a range of $1.42 billion to $1.45 billion and adjusted income from continuing
operations of $2.75 to $2.80 on a diluted per share basis.
194. Also on November 9, 2010, the Exchange Act Defendants conducted a conference
call with investors during which Slusser made the following representations:
Revenue per episode for the period was approximately $3,291, up 4.1% from the prior-year period. The increase in revenue per episode is attributable to the continued shift in mix towards higher acuity patients as our specialty programs continue to expand, as well as increased rates year-over-year.
195. The representations in paragraphs 192-94 were materially false and misleading
because the Exchange Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results,
including reported increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and
margins per episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and
artificially inflated as a result of the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement
system, as alleged in paragraph 65.
196. Gentiva’s third quarter results beat Wall Street estimates, and analysts, including
Deutsche Bank, BB&T Capital Markets and Jefferies & Company, Inc., continued to rate the
stock a “buy.”
197. On November 11, 2010, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to file its
quarterly report for the quarter ended October 3, 2010 (“Q3 2010 10-Q”). The Q3 2010 10-Q
88
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 93 of 133 PageID #: 839
was signed by Strange and Slusser and repeated the financial results reported in the November 9,
2010 press release and made the following representations:
The Company’s episodic revenues grew 7.9 percent and 9.3 percent for the third quarter and first nine months of 2010. . . . Episodic revenue growth, excluding the impact of acquisitions completed in 2009 and the first nine months of 2010, was 6 percent and 7 percent, respectively, for the third quarter and first nine months of 2010 compared to the corresponding periods of 2009. . . .
Growth in episodes was driven by an increase in admissions of 4 percent, from 46,600 admissions in the third quarter of 2009 to 47,600 admissions in the third quarter of 2010 and by 6 percent, from 139,500 admissions in the first nine months of 2009 to 147,900 admissions in the first nine months of 2010. There were approximately 1.45 episodes for each admission during the third quarter and first nine months of both the 2009 and 2010 periods. Factors contributing to the improvements in revenue per episode for the third quarter and first nine months of 2010 include (i) growth in the Company’s specialty programs that have a higher level of reimbursement, (ii) a shift in mix toward higher acuity cases, and (iii) Medicare home health payment changes . . . .
The changes in revenue mix in the Home Health segment resulted from (i) organic revenue growth in Medicare, particularly in the Company’s specialty programs, and the non-Medicare PPS business, and (ii) the elimination or reduction of certain low margin Medicaid and local government business and commercial business, including pediatric and adult hourly services and other business in home health branch offices that were sold in 2009. These changes contributed to an overall increase in gross margin within the Home Health segment . . . .
198. These representations were materially false and misleading because as set forth
above in paragraph 65, the Exchange Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s
financial results, including reported increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue
per episode and margins per episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were
materially and artificially inflated as a result of the improper manipulations of the Medicare
reimbursement system, as alleged in paragraphs 37-61.
89
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 94 of 133 PageID #: 840
199. The Q3 2010 10-Q repeated the representations that Gentiva was in compliance
with Medicare standards and regulations as alleged above in paragraph 78.
200. These representations were materially false and misleading for the reasons set
forth above in paragraph 79.
201. The Q3 2010 10-Q contained SOX Certifications by Strange and Slusser that were
virtually identical to the certification referred to above in paragraph 80 above.
202. Strange’s and Slusser’s representations in the SOX Certifications were materially
false and misleading for the reasons set forth above in paragraph 81.
203. On December 16, 2010, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to issue a
press release that set forth Gentiva’s 2011 net revenue and earnings guidance and represented the
following:
For 2011, Gentiva expects full-year net revenues to be in the range of $1.90 billion to $1.95 billion and adjusted income from continuing operations to be $2.70 to $2.80 on a diluted per share basis. Gentiva’s 2011 outlook includes the full-year impact of its Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. acquisition and the final rules regarding Medicare home health reimbursement rates for 2011 which were issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on November 2, 2010.
204. On December 16, 2010, the Exchange Act Defendants conducted a conference
call with investors during which Slusser represented the following:
Based on the strategic priorities Tony [Strange] outlined and our business plans, for 2011 we expect full-year net revenues to be in the range of $1.9 billion to $1.95 billion. This reflects the full-year impact from the Odyssey Hospice acquisition and the negative impact associated with the recently announced CMS rate cuts. . . .
I just want to clarify one comment, now that I understand the question further that was asked, around our episodic volume growth. If you look at the number I gave around expected 8% to 10% growth, around 6% to 7% of our growth is expected to come from episodic volume. The remainder of that range would come from change in revenue per episode and growth from that. I just wanted to clarify that, now that I looked at the question and understood it.
90
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 95 of 133 PageID #: 841
205. The representations in paragraphs 203-04 were materially false and misleading
because the Exchange Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results,
including reported increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and
margins per episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and
artificially inflated as a result of the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement
system, as alleged in paragraph 65.
11. 2010 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standards and Regulations.
206. On February 17, 2011, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to issue a
press release disclosing the Company’s fourth quarter and full-year 2010 financial results. For
full-year 2010, Gentiva reported net revenues increased by 26% to $1.45 billion and adjusted
EBITDA increased approximately 57% to $200.2 million. For the fourth quarter of 2010,
Gentiva reported total net revenues of $465.0 million, an increase of 50% and adjusted EBITDA
of $64.9 million, an increase of 91%.
207. Moreover, the February 17, 2011 press release made the following representations
about Gentiva’s full-year 2011 outlook:
For 2011, Gentiva expects full-year net revenues to be in the range of $1.90 billion to $1.95 billion and adjusted income from continuing operations attributable to Gentiva shareholders to be in the range of $2.70 to $2.80 on a diluted per share basis. Gentiva’s 2011 outlook includes the full-year impact of its Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. acquisition and the final rules regarding Medicare home health reimbursement rates for 2011, which were issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on November 2, 2010.
208. Also on February 17, 2011, the Exchange Act Defendants conducted a conference
call with investors during which Defendant Slusser made the following representations:
91
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 96 of 133 PageID #: 842
[H]ome health episodic revenue grew year over year by approximately 6%. . . . Revenue per episode for the fourth quarter was approximately $3242, up approximately 2% from the prior year period.
The increase in revenue per episode is primarily attributable to the year-over-year episodic payment updates including the benefit of the [rural add-on] provision as well as the continued shift in mix towards higher acuity patients as our specialty programs continue to expand. . . .
During the fourth quarter, home health gross margins improved to 52.8% compared to 52.4% in the prior year driven by a favorable change in the PPS revenue mix and an increase in the number of clinicians compensated on a pay-per-visit basis compared with a year ago and a decline in the percent of per diem clinicians.
209. The representations in paragraphs 206-08 were materially false and misleading
because the Exchange Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results,
including reported increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and
margins per episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and
artificially inflated as a result of the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement
system, as alleged in paragraph 65.
210. On March 11, 2011, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to file the 2010
10-K. The 2010 10-K, which was signed by Strange, Slusser, and Malone, repeated the financial
results reported in the February 17, 2011 press release and represented the following:
The operation of our home health services business and hospice services business is subject to federal and state laws prohibiting fraud by healthcare providers . . . . We have established policies and procedures that we believe are sufficient to ensure that we will operate in substantial compliance with these anti-fraud and abuse requirements. . . .
The Company’s episodic revenues grew 5.5 percent during fiscal 2010. . . . Factors contributing to the improvements in revenue per episode for the year ended December 31, 2010 included (i) Medicare home health payment changes for 2010 . . . and (ii) the continued shift in mix toward higher acuity patients as
92
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 97 of 133 PageID #: 843
the Company’s specialty programs continued to expand offset somewhat by the impact of the 2011 rate reductions which negatively affected episodes that began in 2010 and remained open at year-end. . . .
There are certain standards and regulations that the Company must adhere to in order to continue to participate in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state healthcare programs. As part of these standards and regulations, the Company is subject to periodic audits, examinations and investigations conducted by, or at the direction of, governmental investigatory and oversight agencies. Periodic and random audits conducted or directed by these agencies could result in a delay or adjustment to the amount of reimbursements received under these programs. Violation of the applicable federal and state health care regulations can result in the Company’s exclusion from participating in these programs and can subject the Company to substantial civil and/or criminal penalties. The Company believes that it is currently in compliance with these standards and regulations.
211. These representations were materially false and misleading for the reasons set
forth above in paragraph 65 and because Gentiva’s compliance program was a sham, as alleged
in paragraph 182.
212. The 2010 10-K contained SOX Certifications by Strange and Slusser that were
virtually identical to the certification referred to above in paragraph 80.
213. Strange’s and Slusser’s representations in the SOX Certifications were materially
false and misleading for the reasons set forth above in paragraph 81.
214. On March 14, 2011, Defendant Strange made the following representation in a
“Dear Shareholder” letter transmitted to shareholders with the 2010 10-K:
The results reflect improved home health operating margins as we get more efficient and leverage the benefits of our growing scale, as well as strong performance throughout 2010 from our legacy hospice business.
It’s important to note that these results were generated in a year in which patient volumes temporarily declined as seniors grappled with the changes brought on by healthcare reform, and in which late in the year, we faced Medicare home health reimbursement cuts.
215. These representations were materially false and misleading for the reasons set
forth above in paragraph 65.
93
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 98 of 133 PageID #: 844
216. The Dear Shareholder letter further represented that maintaining a “strong culture
of regulatory compliance” was one of Gentiva’s strategic priorities for 2011.
217. The representations in the “Dear Shareholder” letter were materially false and
misleading for the reasons set forth above in paragraph 182.
218. On March 15, 2011, Strange made the following representations at the Barclays
Capital Global Healthcare conference:
And the last thing is it really is a part of Gentiva and who we are and that’s a company with a culture of compliance. We play right down the middle of the fairway, there’s a lot of noise around our industry about people that are participating in activities that might border on fraud and abuse, but Gentiva because of our size and commitment to playing by the rules, we have a very strong culture of compliance, and that’s something that we’ll maintain as we continue to grow.
219. These representations were materially false and misleading because as alleged
above in paragraphs 49, 53-61, Gentiva did not have a “strong culture of regulatory compliance.”
Indeed, in stark contrast, by this point in time, not only had Strange received the Parting
Comments Email, to which there was apparently no response, but numerous other Gentiva
employees and managers throughout the country had expressed concerns to Company Human
Resource, Compliance and other executives about chronic pressure being placed on them to
violate Medicare standards and regulations. ( Id. )
220. Further, Strange’s representation on March 15, 2011 that Gentiva was “playing by
the rules” was materially false and misleading because the Exchange Act Defendants knew, or at
least recklessly disregarded, that Gentiva was engaging in practices that violated Medicare
standards and regulations and resulted in the provision of medically unnecessary services as
alleged above in paragraph 65.
94
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 99 of 133 PageID #: 845
221. Also, Slusser made the following representations at the Barclays Capital Global
Healthcare Conference:
Probably the really thing that stands out here is the continued margin expansion that we have been able to get out of the company, we finished the year overall at 13.8%, including the new Hospice business, that’s up from 11% in ’09. And not too many years ago, about five years ago, that number was about 5%, so there’s been a significant amount of focus over the last five to six years on margins and expansion. And again, we continue to see good results out of that focus and as we approach a 14% number. . . .
[I]f you look at the total net revenue line, a little softer growth number than we’ve seen in the past. . . . One of the key things here though that we did to offset that, a lot of margin focus. Gross margin in the 53.7%, that’s getting to the high end of our historical numbers. We’re very pleased with that and also our contribution margin business at the 20% level again continued to expand that up 200 basis points year-over-year. So, while the revenue growth is a little slower than expected, we’re able to overcome and compensate for that by focusing on cost and margin expansion to improve our numbers . . . .
From an outlook perspective, we did give guidance back in December and reiterated that at our year end results this year. Revenue, our expectations are $1.9 billion to $1.950 billion.
222. These representations were materially false and misleading because as set forth
above in paragraph 65, Gentiva’s revenue growth was being achieved by providing patients with
medically unnecessary services, in direct violation of Medicare regulations and standards.
223. On March 24, 2011, Slusser made the following representations at the Barclays
Capital High Yield Bond & Syndicated Loan Conference :
[W]e believe that we are the most compliant company out there that we have the best industry compliance program and we will continue to maintain that focus on our—on that compliance culture that we have in place.
224. These representations were materially false and misleading for the reasons set
forth above in paragraph 182.
225. Also Slusser made the following representations at the Barclays Capital High
Yield Bond & Syndicated Loan Conference :
95
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 100 of 133 PageID #: 846
We are able to focus on margin expansion. 2009 we are in 11% EBITDA range and we finished at 13.8%. So, it wasn’t more than about five, six years ago that number was 5%. So, there has been a significant focus in the company on margin growth, margin expansion and getting up to more to where the industry numbers are, so very pleased with those results.
226. These representations were materially false and misleading because the Exchange
Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results, including reported
increases in revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and margins per
episode) and the purported reasons behind those increases were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and artificially inflated
as a result of the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement system, as alleged in
paragraph 65.
12. First Quarter 2011 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standards and Regulations.
227. On May 5, 2011, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to issue a press
release disclosing the Company’s financial results for the quarter ended April 4, 2011 that
reported net revenues of $458.8 million, an increase of 54% and net income attributable to
Gentiva shareholders of $13.5 million, or $0.44 per diluted share, compared to $9.3 million, or
$0.31 per diluted share, in the first quarter of 2010.
228. These representations were materially false and misleading because the Exchange
Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and
artificially inflated as a result the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement
system, as alleged in paragraph 65.
229. On May 9, 2011, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to file its
quarterly report for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (“Q1 2011 10-Q”). The Q1 2011 10-Q
96
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 101 of 133 PageID #: 847
was signed by Strange and Slusser, and repeated the financial results reported in the May 5,
2011.
230. These representations were materially false and misleading because the Exchange
Act Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and
artificially inflated as a result of the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement
system, as alleged in paragraph 65.
231. The Q1 2011 10-Q repeated the representations that Gentiva was in compliance
with Medicare regulations and standards as alleged above in paragraph 78.
232. These representations were materially false and misleading for the reasons set
forth above in paragraph 79.
233. The Q1 2011 10-Q contained SOX Certifications by Strange and Slusser that were
virtually identical to the certification referred to above in paragraph 80.
234. Strange’s and Slusser’s representations in the SOX Certifications were materially
false and misleading for the reasons set forth above in paragraph 81.
13. Second Quarter 2011 Financial Results and Representations about Compliance with Medicare Standards and Regulations.
235. On August 4, 2011, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to issue a press
release disclosing its financial results for the quarter ended August 4, 2011 that reported net
revenues of $456.9 million, an increase of 54%, net income attributable to Gentiva shareholders
of $5.2 million, or $0.17 per diluted share, compared to $18.9 million, or $0.62 per diluted share,
in the second quarter of 2010. The press release announced that Gentiva was adjusting its full-
year 2011 outlook as follows:
97
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 102 of 133 PageID #: 848
Given the Company’s results for the first half of 2011 and the expectation of a continued difficult operating environment through the remainder of the year, Gentiva has adjusted its 2011 outlook. Full-year 2011 net revenues are expected to be in the range of $1.8 billion to $1.85 billion and adjusted income from continuing operations attributable to Gentiva shareholders is expected to be in the range of $2.00 to $2.20 on a diluted per share basis.
236. On August 4, 2011, the Exchange Act Defendants conducted a conference call
with investors during which Strange made the following representations:
The complexity of the new regulatory requirements along with the overall softness in health care services volumes, has impacted our ability to meet our growth expectations. . . [and] the additional costs of the regulations have pressured margins. . . . [T]he administrative burden of meeting the new regulations was dilutive to our margins. . . .
That brings me to our outlook for the remainder of 2011. The impact of continued softness in volumes, the cost burden of additional regulations, ongoing debates over Medicare cuts and potential co-pays, as well as the softness across all of healthcare services sector, has led us to lower our expectations for the remainder of this year.
237. On August 8, 2011, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to file its
quarterly report for the quarter ended June 30, 2011 with the SEC on Form 10-Q (“Q2 2011 10-
Q”). The Q2 2011 10-Q that was signed by Strange and Slusser and repeated the financial
results reported in the August 4, 2011 press release.
238. The representations in paragraphs 235-37 were materially false and misleading for
the reasons set forth above in paragraphs 65-66 and for the additional reason that the “softness in
health care service volumes” and decline in home health revenues was due to the fact that the
Exchange Act Defendants would have to curtail their wrongful conduct as a result of regulatory
scrutiny of Gentiva’s business practices and for the additional reason that the Exchange Act
Defendants’ representations concerning Gentiva’s financial results were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that these reported figures were materially and
98
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 103 of 133 PageID #: 849
artificially inflated as a result of the improper manipulations of the Medicare reimbursement
system, as alleged in paragraph 65.
239. The Q2 2011 10-Q repeated the representation that Gentiva was in compliance
with Medicare standards and regulations as alleged above in paragraph 78.
240. These representations were materially false and misleading for the reasons set
forth above in paragraph 79.
241. The Q2 2011 10-Q contained SOX Certifications by Strange and Slusser that were
virtually identical to the certification referred to above in paragraph 80.
242. Strange’s and Slusser’s representations in the SOX Certifications were materially
false and misleading for the reasons set forth above in paragraph 81.
243. On September 14, 2011, Defendant Strange made the following representations at
the Morgan Stanley Healthcare Conference :
The other thing they’ve done is redistributed dollars amongst the 153 HHRGs. And so depending on a patient or a company’s mix within those HHRGs, as to whether that is slightly positive, negative, or even potentially largely negative.
But, that’s unless you had the data on a—on all of the companies, all of their episodes, it would be almost impossible to model that. What we have said, the combination of those three buckets, what Eric [Slusser] has said publically last week, with the net impact of that should be a $40 million to $45 million reduction in reimbursement to Gentiva for 2012 and you can kind of back into that third piece from those numbers. . . .
I think we would be naïve to think that the margin pressures go away. With the margin pressure we’ve seen in 2011, we had about a 5% rate reduction. We’ve had—we just talked about the $40 to $45 million in ’12. I think that it would be naïve to think that all of a sudden we’ll wake in ’13 and everything is going to be rosy. But, in terms of predicting what those rates look like in ’13, I couldn’t do that.
[I]f you look at the average revenue per episode and the average revenue per episode is driven by that acuity that you talked about, we perform an OASIS assessment with the patient and based on the outcome of this assessment, it really drives the case mix or the acuity which in turn drives revenue for us. If the
99
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 104 of 133 PageID #: 850
question that you asked when overall healthcare volumes were down, would we see a corresponding decrease in the kind of acuity that we took care of, if that were the case, you would see a corresponding reduction in revenue per episode. If you look at our revenue per episode over the last several quarters, you would see it consistently running, I think, the number we put out was just over $3,000 an episode, which is somewhat consistent with industry—with our industry peers.
244. These representations were materially false and misleading for the reasons set
forth above in paragraph 65-66.
D. Loss Causation/Economic Loss
245. During the Class Period, as detailed herein, the Exchange Act Defendants
engaged in a scheme to deceive the market and a course of conduct that artificially inflated the
price of Gentiva securities and operated as a fraud or deceit on Class Period purchasers of
Gentiva securities by misrepresenting the Company’s operating condition and financial
performance. The Exchange Act Defendants achieved this by making positive statements about
Gentiva’s business and earnings for the Company while they knew, or at least recklessly
disregarded, that the Company was engaging practices that violated Medicare standards and
regulations and resulted in the provision of medically unnecessary services, as alleged herein.
Later, however, when the Exchange Act Defendants’ prior misrepresentations were revealed and
became apparent to the market, the price of Gentiva securities declined as the prior artificial
inflation came out of the price of Gentiva securities through partial disclosures described below.
As a result of their purchases of Gentiva securities during the Class Period, Lead Plaintiff and
other members of the Class suffered economic loss, i.e. , damages under the federal securities
laws.
246. As a direct result of the public revelations regarding the truth about the condition
of Gentiva’s business and the negative adverse factors that had been impacting Gentiva’s
business during the Class Period, the price of Gentiva’s securities materially declined. These
100
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 105 of 133 PageID #: 851
declines removed the inflation from Gentiva’s securities, causing real economic loss to investors
who purchased Gentiva securities during the Class Period.
247. The timing and magnitude of the decline in the price of Gentiva securities negate
any inference that the loss suffered by Lead Plaintiff and other Class members was caused by
changed market conditions, macroeconomic or industry factors, or Company-specific facts
unrelated to the Exchange Act Defendants’ fraudulent conduct.
a. May 13, 2010 Partial Disclosure
248. On May 13, 2010, before the market opened, the Wall Street Journal reported that
the SFC launched an investigation into the practices of companies that provide in-home therapy
visits reimbursed by Medicare, including Gentiva.
249. On May 13, 2010, Gentiva shares declined from a closing price on May 12, 2010
of $29.75 per share to close at $27.55 per share, a decline of $2.20 per share or approximately
7% on heavier than usual volume.
250. However, the Exchange Act Defendants continued to represent that Gentiva was
in compliance with Medicare standards and regulations. Indeed, also on May 13, 2010, as
alleged above, the Exchange Act Defendants caused Gentiva to file its quarterly report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 29, 2010 that represented that the “Company believes that it is
currently in compliance” with Medicare standards and regulations.
b. July 1, 2010 Partial Disclosure
251. On July 1, 2010, prior to the market opening, the Exchange Act Defendants
caused Gentiva to issue a press release, filed with the SEC on Form 8-K, that attempted to allay
investors concerns caused by the SFC’s investigation by representing the following:
In light of recent reports from other companies in the home healthcare industry, Gentiva Health Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Gentiva”), reported today
101
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 106 of 133 PageID #: 852
that it has not received a notice of formal investigation from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and has not received a subpoena for documents related to the matters under review by the Senate Finance Committee.
Gentiva is actively cooperating with the Senate Finance Committee in their review of the home healthcare industry and expects to be fully compliant with the Committee’s requests.
252. On July 1, 2010, Gentiva shares declined from a close on June 30, 2010 of $27.01
per share, to close at $23.93 per share, a decline of $3.08 per share or approximately 11% on
heavier than usual volume. Had the Exchange Act Defendants revealed the truth about their
conduct, Gentiva shares would have declined further.
c. July 13, 2010 Partial Disclosure
253. On July 13, 2010 Gentiva disclosed that the SEC commenced an investigation
relating to Gentiva’s participation in the Medicare Home Health PPS.
254. On July 13, 2010, Gentiva shares declined from a close on July 12, 2010 of
$24.17 per share, to close at $22.30 per share, a decline of $1.87 per share or over 7% on heavier
than usual volume. On July 14, 2010, Gentiva shares declined an additional $0.31 per share to
close at $21.99 per share, for a two day decline of approximately 9%.
d. July 20, 2010 Partial Disclosure
255. On July 20, 2010, after the close of trading, Gentiva disclosed its financial results
for the fiscal quarter ended July 4, 2010. Among other things, the Company disclosed that “in
light of recent softness in home health episodic volumes and the anticipated seasonality in third
quarter volumes as experienced by the Company historically, Gentiva has reduced its full-year
revenue guidance to a range of $1.20 billion to $1.23 billion from its prior guidance of between
$1.23 billion to $1.26 billion.” However, as alleged above, the Exchange Act Defendants
explanations for “recent softness in home health episodic volumes” were not true. In truth, the
102
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 107 of 133 PageID #: 853
“softness” in revenues was due to the fact that the Exchange Act Defendants would have to
curtail their fraudulent conduct as a result of regulatory scrutiny of Gentiva’s business practices.
256. On July 21, 2010, Gentiva shares declined from a close on July 20, 2010 of
$21.60 per share, to close at $19.96 per share, a decline of $1.64 per share or over 7% on heavier
than usual volume. The next trading day, Gentiva shares declined an additional $0.56 per share,
for a two day decline of approximately 10%.
e. August 4, 2011 Partial Disclosure
257. On August 4, 2011, before the market opened, Gentiva issued a press release
announcing its financial results for the quarter ended July 4, 2011.
258. Also on August 4, 2011, the Exchange Act Defendants conducted a conference
call with investors during which Strange stated that “[t]he complexity of the new regulatory
requirements along with the overall softness in health care services volumes, has impacted our
ability to meet our growth expectations . . . the additional costs of the regulations have pressured
margins” (CMS had announced a number of proposed changes to PPS rates in July 2011 in
order to “decrease incentives for upcoding” and reduce “billing practices [] not related to
changes in the health status of patients”)
259. For the quarter ended July 4, 2011, the implementation of new regulations caused
Gentiva’s home health revenue to decline 4.9% year over year, driven by a decline in revenue
per episode of over 6%.
260. Again, the Company’s profitability declined because the Exchange Act
Defendants would have to curtail their fraudulent conduct as a result of regulatory scrutiny of
Gentiva’s business practices.
103
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 108 of 133 PageID #: 854
261. Also on August 4, 2011, it was reported that Moody’s Investors Service said it
was reviewing Gentiva’s ratings for a possible downgrade deeper into junk territory because of a
“confluence of negative factors” in the home health sector.
262. On August 4, 2011, Gentiva shares declined from a closing price on August 3,
2011 of $13.36 per share to close at $8.85 per share August 4, 2011, a decline of $4.51 per share
or approximately 34% on heavier than usual volume. Between August 4 and August 9, 2011,
Gentiva’s 11.5% Notes declined approximately 9%.
263. On August 10, 2011, Bloomberg reported that according to Credit Suisse, cuts in
Medicare payments may force Gentiva to breach loan covenants in 2011.
264. On August 12, 2011, it was reported that Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services
downgraded Gentiva, partly because of Gentiva’s “weak earnings” this year. Reportedly, S&P
analyst Tahira Wright said the downgrade was driven by Gentiva’s significantly lower-than-
expected performance and prospects that Medicare cuts could hurt margin enough to force
Gentiva to violate certain debt covenants.
f. October 3-4, 2011 Disclosure
265. On October 3, 2011, before the market opened, the Staff Report on Home Health
and the Medicare Therapy Threshold, discussed above, was publicly disclosed.
266. On October 3, 2011, Gentiva shares declined from the prior trading day closing
price on September 30, 2011 of $5.52 per share, to close at $3.68 per share, a decline of $1.84
per share or approximately 33% on heavier than usual volume.
267. After the close of trading on October 3, 2011, Gentiva issued a press release that,
among other things, denied many of the findings of the SFC Report. Specifically, Gentiva
represented that it “maintains its belief that the company is providing the highest quality care and
104
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 109 of 133 PageID #: 855
receives payments within the standards set forth by the reimbursement system established by the
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).”
268. On October 4, 2011, Gentiva shares declined from a closing price on October 3,
2011 of $3.68 per share to close at $3.02 per share, a decline of 18% on heavier than usual
volume. Gentiva’s 11.5% Notes similarly declined.
E. Fraud-On-The-Market Doctrine
269. At all relevant times, Gentiva’s securities traded in an efficient market for the
following reasons, among others:
(a) The Company’s common stock met the requirements for public listing and was
listed and actively traded on the Nasdaq, a highly efficient market;
(b) As a regulated issuer, the Company filed periodic public reports with the SEC,
including Form S-3, and Form S-4 in connection with the issuance of the 11.5% Notes;
(c) The 11.5% Notes were actively traded during the Class Period and transactions in
the 11.5% Notes were required to be reported on FINRA’s Trade Reporting and
Compliance Engine (TRACE); and
(d) the Company regularly issued press releases which were carried by national news
wires. Each of these releases was publicly available and entered the public
marketplace;
270. The Company was covered by several research analysts that regularly issued
reports throughout the Class Period concerning Gentiva’s business.
271. As a result, the market for the Company’s publicly traded securities promptly
digested current information with respect to Gentiva from all publicly available sources and
reflected such information in the price of the Company’s securities. Under these circumstances,
105
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 110 of 133 PageID #: 856
all purchasers of the Company’s publicly traded securities during the Class Period suffered
similar injury through their purchase of the Gentiva securities at artificially inflated prices and a
presumption of reliance applies.
F. Additional Scienter Allegations
272. As alleged herein, the Exchange Act Defendants acted with scienter in that they
knew that the public documents and statements issued or disseminated in the name of the
Company were materially false and misleading; knew that such statements or documents would
be issued or disseminated to the investing public; and knowingly and substantially participated or
acquiesced in the issuance or dissemination of such statements or documents as primary
violations of the federal securities laws. As set forth elsewhere herein in detail, the Exchange
Act Defendants, by virtue of their receipt of information reflecting the true facts regarding
Gentiva, their control over, and/or receipt and/or modification of Gentiva’s allegedly materially
misleading misstatements and/or their associations with the Company which made them privy to
confidential proprietary information concerning Gentiva, participated in the fraudulent scheme
alleged herein.
273. The Exchange Act Defendants knew and/or recklessly disregarded the falsity and
misleading nature of the information which they caused to be disseminated to the investing
public. The ongoing fraudulent scheme described in this complaint could not have been
perpetrated over a substantial period of time, as has occurred, without the knowledge and
complicity of the personnel at the highest level of the Company, including the Individual
Exchange Act Defendants.
106
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 111 of 133 PageID #: 857
274. Malone served on Gentiva’s Clinical Quality Committee. The Clinical Quality
Committee reportedly met three times per year during the 2008 to 2010 time period . The
principal functions and responsibilities of Gentiva’s Clinical Quality Committee included:
• Providing oversight of our clinical leadership in the development of leading edge clinical strategies and practices;
• Monitoring our performance against established internal and external benchmarking regarding clinical performance and outcomes;
• Facilitating the development of industry best practices based on internal and external data comparisons;
• Fostering enhanced awareness of our clinical performance by the Board of Directors and external sources;
~ Establishing a long term, strategic clinical vision for Gentiva; and
• Reporting to the Board of Directors a summary of its findings and recommendations.
275. The Exchange Act Defendants had the motive and opportunity to perpetrate the
fraudulent scheme and course of business described herein because the Individual Exchange Act
Defendants were the most senior officers of Gentiva, issued statements and press releases on
behalf of Gentiva and had the opportunity to commit the fraud alleged herein.
276. As alleged above in paragraphs 19-21, during the Class Period, Malone,
Potapchuk and Strange collectively sold approximately 291,979 Gentiva shares at artificially
inflated prices for proceeds of approximately $7.1 million.
277. Further, the Exchange Act Defendants were motivated to engage in the fraudulent
conduct alleged herein in order to acquire Odyssey. The Exchange Act Defendants needed to
acquire Odyssey in order to diversify their business beyond home health care which was
becoming less profitable as regulatory scrutiny of Gentiva’s business practices increased.
107
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 112 of 133 PageID #: 858
278. In connection with the Odyssey transaction, Gentiva sold $325 million in 11.5%
Notes.
G. No Safe Harbor
279. The statutory safe harbor provided for forward-looking statements under certain
circumstances does not apply to any of the allegedly false statements pleaded in this Complaint
because the Exchange Act Defendants’ representations were false when made and concerned
historical or present facts.
280. Many of the specific statements pleaded herein were not identified as “forward-
looking statements” when made. To the extent there were any forward-looking statements, there
were no meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual
results to differ materially from those in the purportedly forward-looking statements.
Alternatively, to the extent that the statutory safe harbor does apply to any forward-looking
statements pleaded herein, the Exchange Act Defendants are liable for those false forward-
looking statements because at the time each of those forward-looking statements was made, the
particular speaker knew that the particular forward-looking statement was false, and/or the
forward-looking statement was authorized and/or approved by an executive officer of Gentiva
who knew that those statements were false when made.
H. Claims for Relief under the Exchange Act.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF For Violation of Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act
and Rule 10b-5 Against the Exchange Act Defendants
281. Lead Plaintiff incorporates ¶¶ 1-280 by reference.
282. During the Class Period, the Exchange Act Defendants disseminated or approved
the false statements specified above, which they knew or recklessly disregarded were materially
108
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 113 of 133 PageID #: 859
false and misleading in that they contained material misrepresentations and failed to disclose
material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which they were made, not misleading.
283. The Exchange Act Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and Rule
10b-5 in that they:
(a) Employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud;
(b) Made untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state material facts
necessary in order to make statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were
made not misleading; or
(c) Engaged in acts, practices, and a course of business that operated as a fraud or
deceit upon Lead Plaintiff and others similarly situated in connection with their purchases of
Gentiva publicly traded securities during the Class Period.
284. Lead Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages in that, in reliance on the
integrity of the market, they paid artificially inflated prices for Gentiva’s publicly traded
securities. Lead Plaintiff and the Class would not have purchased Gentiva securities at the prices
they paid, or at all, if they had been aware that the market prices had been artificially and falsely
inflated by the Exchange Act Defendants misleading statements.
285. As a direct and proximate result of the Exchange Act Defendants’ wrongful
conduct, Lead Plaintiff and the other members of the Class suffered damages in connection with
their purchases of Gentiva securities during the Class Period.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF For Violation of Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act
Against the Individual Exchange Act Defendants
286. Lead Plaintiff incorporates ¶¶ 1-280 by reference.
109
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 114 of 133 PageID #: 860
287. The Individual Exchange Act Defendants acted as a controlling person of Gentiva
within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as alleged herein. By virtue of their
high-level positions, and their ownership and contractual rights, participation in and/or
awareness of the Company’s operations and/or intimate knowledge of the statements filed by the
Company with the SEC and disseminated to the investing public, the Individual Exchange Act
Defendants had the power to influence and control and did influence and control, directly or
indirectly, the decision-making of the Company, including the content and dissemination of the
various statements which Lead Plaintiff contends are false and misleading. The Individual
Exchange Act Defendants were provided with or had unlimited access to copies of the
Company’s reports, press releases, public filings and other statements alleged by Lead Plaintiff
to be misleading prior to and/or shortly after these statements were issued and had the ability to
prevent the issuance of the statements or cause the statements to be corrected.
288. In particular, the Individual Exchange Act Defendants had direct and supervisory
involvement in the day-to-day operations of the Company and, therefore, are presumed to have
had the power to control or influence the particular transactions giving rise to the securities
violations as alleged herein, and exercised the same.
289. As set forth above, the Exchange Act Defendants each violated Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 by their acts and omissions as alleged in this Complaint. By virtue of their positions
as a controlling person, the Individual Exchange Act Defendants are liable pursuant to Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act. As a direct and proximate result of the Exchange Act Defendants’
wrongful conduct, Lead Plaintiff and other members of the Class suffered damages in connection
with their purchases of the Company’s securities during the Class Period.
110
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 115 of 133 PageID #: 861
IV. SECURITIES ACT CLAIMS
290. The allegations in Section IV are in effect a separate complaint (the “Securities
Act Claims”).
291. For the Securities Act Claims there is no allegation of fraud, scienter or
recklessness and these claims do not incorporate any of the allegations contained in Section III.
292. The only claim is that there were material misrepresentations and/or omissions of
material fact in the Registration Statements filed with the SEC on October 21 and 27, 2010 on
Form S-4 (the “Registration Statements”) and Prospectus dated November 18, 2010 (the
Registration Statements and Prospectus are collectively referred to as the “Offering Documents”)
in connection with Gentiva’s offering of $325 million in 11.5% Notes (the “Offering”)
293. Under Section 11 of the Securities Act, Gentiva and the individual defendants (as
defined below) that signed the Registration Statements are strictly liable for the
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the Offering Documents alleged below.
A. The Securities Act Parties
294. On January 26, 2012 LACERS was appointed Lead Plaintiff pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and brings the Securities Act Claims on behalf
all persons that purchased Gentiva securities in the Offering and were damaged thereby.
295. Defendant Gentiva is incorporated in Delaware and its current principal executive
offices are located at 3350 Riverwood Parkway, Suite 1400, Atlanta, GA 30339. During the
Class Period, Gentiva maintained executive offices in Melville, New York. On November 18,
2010, Gentiva sold $325 million in 11.5% Notes in the Offering.
296. Defendant Ronald A. Malone (“Malone”) was the Company’s Chairman of the
Board of Directors at the time of the Offering and signed the Registration Statements.
111
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 116 of 133 PageID #: 862
297. Defendant Anthony H. Strange (“Strange”) was Gentiva’s Chief Executive
Officer at the time of the Offering and signed the Registration Statements.
298. Defendant Eric R. Slusser (“Slusser”) was Gentiva’s Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Executive V.P. at the time of the Offering and signed the Registration Statements.
299. Strange, Malone, and Slusser are referred to herein as the “Individual Securities
Act Defendants.” Gentiva, along with the Individual Securities Act Defendants, are collectively
referred to as the “Securities Act Defendants.”
B. Gentiva’s False and Misleading Offering Documents
300. On October 21 and 27, 2010, the Securities Act Defendants caused Gentiva to file
the Registration Statements with the SEC.
301. The Registration Statements were signed by Strange, Slusser, and Malone.
302. The Registration Statements incorporated by reference Gentiva’s annual report for
the fiscal year ended January 3, 2010 filed with the SEC on Form 10-K (the “2009 10-K”);
Gentiva’s quarterly report for the fiscal quarter ended April 4, 2010 filed with the SEC on Form
10-Q (“Q1 2010 10-Q”); Gentiva’s quarterly report for the fiscal quarter ended July 4, 2010 filed
with the SEC on Form 10-Q (“Q2 2010 10-Q”); and Gentiva’s quarterly report for the fiscal
quarter ended October 3, 2010 filed with the SEC on Form 10-Q (“Q3 2010 10-Q.”)
303. On November 18, 2010 the Securities Act Defendants caused Gentiva to file a
prospectus with the SEC on Form 424B3, relating to Gentiva’s offering of $325 million in 11.5%
Senior Notes due 2018. The November 18, 2010 prospectus incorporated by reference the 2009
10-K, Q1 2010 10-Q, Q2 2010 10-Q and Q3 2010 10-Q.
304. The Registration Statements represented, in part, the following:
The operation of our home health services business and hospice services is subject to federal and state laws prohibiting fraud by healthcare providers, including laws
112
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 117 of 133 PageID #: 863
containing criminal provisions, which prohibit filing false claims or making false statements in order to receive payment or obtain certification under Medicare and Medicaid programs, or failing to refund overpayments or improper payments. . . . We have established policies and procedures that we believe are sufficient to ensure that we will operate in substantial compliance with these anti-fraud and abuse requirements.
1. The 2009 10-K
305. The 2009 10-K made the following representations:
Government Regulations
The Company’s business is subject to extensive federal, state and, in some instances, local regulations which govern, among other things:
• Medicare . . .; • reporting requirements, certification and licensing standards for certain home health agencies and hospice; and . . . .
There are certain standards and regulations that the Company must adhere to in order to continue to participate in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state healthcare programs. As part of these standards and regulations, the Company is subject to periodic audits, examinations and investigations conducted by, or at the direction of, government investigatory and oversight agencies. Periodic and random audits, conducted or directed by these agencies could result in a delay or adjustment to the amount of reimbursements received under these programs. Violation of the applicable federal and state health care regulations can result in the Company’s exclusion from participating in these programs and can subject the Company to substantial civil and/or criminal penalties. The Company believes that it is currently in compliance with these standards and regulations.
306. The 2009 10-K represented that Gentiva’s “episodic revenues grew 22.9% during
fiscal 2009” and revenue per episode was $3,160, an increase of 10.9% and that “[f]actors
contributing to the improvements in revenue per episode for fiscal 2009 include growth in the
Company’s therapy-based specialty programs that have a higher level of reimbursement, and a
shift in mix toward higher acuity cases.”
113
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 118 of 133 PageID #: 864
307. The 2009 10-K contained certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (“SOX Certifications”) that were signed by Strange and Potapchuk and stated, in part, the
following:
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Gentiva Health Services, Inc.;
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
114
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 119 of 133 PageID #: 865
registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
2. The Q1 2010 10-Q
308. The Q1 2010 10-Q disclosed Gentiva’s financial results for the fiscal quarter
ended April 4, 2010, reporting net revenues of $297.1 million.
309. The Q1 2010 10-Q made the following representations:
The Company’s episodic revenues grew 13.0 percent for the first quarter of 2010. . . . Episodic revenue growth, excluding the impact of acquisitions completed in 2009 and the first quarter of 2010, was 11 percent for the first quarter of 2010 compared to the corresponding period of 2009. . . .
Growth in episodes was driven by an increase in admissions of more than 10 percent, from 46,900 admissions in the first quarter of 2009 to 51,600 admissions in the first quarter of 2010. There were approximately 1.4 episodes for each admission during both the 2009 and 2010 first quarter periods. Factors contributing to the improvements in revenue per episode for the first quarter of 2010 include growth in the Company’s therapy-based specialty programs that have a higher level of reimbursement, and shift in mix toward higher acuity cases. . . .
The changes in revenue mix in the Home Health segment resulted from (i) organic revenue growth in Medicare, particularly in the Company’s specialty programs, and the non-Medicare PPS business, and (ii) the elimination or reduction of certain low margin Medicaid and local government business and commercial business, including pediatric and adult hourly services and other
115
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 120 of 133 PageID #: 866
business in home health branch offices that were sold in the first quarter of 2009. These changes contributed to an overall increase in gross margin within the Home Health segment from 52.2 percent in the first quarter of 2009 compared to 53.2 percent in the first quarter of 2010.
310. The Q1 2010 10-Q also represented, in part, the following:
There are certain standards and regulations that the Company must adhere to in order to continue to participate in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state healthcare programs. As part of these standards and regulations, the Company is subject to periodic audits, examinations and investigations conducted by, or at the direction of, governmental investigatory and oversight agencies. Periodic and random audits conducted or directed by these agencies could result in a delay in or adjustment to the amount of reimbursements received under these programs. Violation of the applicable federal and state health care regulations can result in our exclusion from participating in these programs and can subject the Company to substantial civil and/or criminal penalties. The Company believes that it is currently in compliance with these standards and regulations.
311. The Q1 2010 10-Q contained SOX Certifications by Strange and Potapchuk that
were virtually identical to the certification referred to above in paragraph 307.
3. The Q2 2010 10-Q
312. The Q2 2010 10-Q disclosed Gentiva’s financial results for the quarter ended July
4, 2010 that reported net revenues of $297 million.
313. The Q2 2010 10-Q made the following representations:
The Company’s episodic revenues grew 7.2 percent and 10.0 percent for the second quarter and first six months of 2010. . . . Episodic revenue growth, excluding the impact of acquisitions completed in 2009 and the first six months of 2010, was 5 percent and 8 percent, respectively for the second quarter and first six months of 2010 compared to the corresponding periods of 2009. . . .
Growth in episodes was driven by an increase in admissions of more than 4 percent, from 46,600 admissions in the second quarter of 2009 to 48,600 admissions in the second quarter of 2010 and by more than 7 percent, from 93,500 admissions in the first six months of 2009 to 100,250 admissions in the first six months of 2010. There were approximately 1.4 episodes for each admission during the second quarter and first six months of both the 2009 and 2010 periods. Factors contributing to the improvements in revenue per episode for the second quarter and first six months of 2010 include (i) growth in the Company’s therapy-based specialty programs that have a higher level of reimbursement, (ii) a shift in
116
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 121 of 133 PageID #: 867
mix toward higher acuity cases, (iii) a 3.0 percent add-on to Medicare payments for services to patients in rural areas effective April 1, 2010 in which the Company generated approximately 20 percent and 22 percent of its episodic revenue during the second quarter and first six months of 2010, respectively, and (iv) a 2.0 percent market basket update for Medicare home health payments effective January 1, 2010. . . .
The changes in revenue mix in the Home Health segment resulted from (i) organic revenue growth in Medicare, particularly in the Company’s specialty programs, and the non-Medicare PPS business, and (ii) the elimination or reduction of certain low margin Medicaid and local government business and commercial business, including pediatric and adult hourly services and other business in home health branch offices that were sold in 2009. These changes contributed to an overall increase in gross margin within the Home Health segment from 53.6 percent and 52.9 percent in the second quarter and first six months of 2009 compared to 55.2 percent and 54.2 in the second quarter and first six months of 2010.
314. The Q2 2010 10-Q also included representations that the Company was in
compliance with applicable Medicare standards and regulations that were virtually identical to
the representations alleged above in paragraph 305.
315. The Q2 2010 10-Q contained SOX Certifications by Strange and Slusser that were
virtually identical to the certification in the 2009 10-K alleged in paragraph 307.
4. The Q3 2010 10-Q
316. The Q3 2010 disclosed Gentiva’s financial results for the quarter ended October
3, 2010, reporting net revenues of $387.8 million, compared to $281.2 million for the quarter
ended September 27, 2009.
317. The Q3 2010 made the following representations:
The Company’s episodic revenues grew 7.9 percent and 9.3 percent for the third quarter and first nine months of 2010. . . . Episodic revenue growth, excluding the impact of acquisitions completed in 2009 and the first nine months of 2010, was 6 percent and 7 percent, respectively, for the third quarter and first nine months of 2010 compared to the corresponding periods of 2009. . . .
Growth in episodes was driven by an increase in admissions of 4 percent, from 46,600 admissions in the third quarter of 2009 to 47,600 admissions in the third
117
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 122 of 133 PageID #: 868
quarter of 2010 and by 6 percent, from 139,500 admissions in the first nine months of 2009 to 147,900 admissions in the first nine months of 2010. There were approximately 1.45 episodes for each admission during the third quarter and first nine months of both the 2009 and 2010 periods. Factors contributing to the improvements in revenue per episode for the third quarter and first nine months of 2010 include (i) growth in the Company’s specialty programs that have a higher level of reimbursement, (ii) a shift in mix toward higher acuity cases, and (iii) Medicare home health payment changes . . . .
The changes in revenue mix in the Home Health segment resulted from (i) organic revenue growth in Medicare, particularly in the Company’s specialty programs, and the non-Medicare PPS business, and (ii) the elimination or reduction of certain low margin Medicaid and local government business and commercial business, including pediatric and adult hourly services and other business in home health branch offices that were sold in 2009. These changes contributed to an overall increase in gross margin within the Home Health segment . . . .
318. The Q3 2010 also included representations that the Company was in compliance
with applicable Medicare standards and regulations that were virtually identical to the
representations alleged above in paragraph 305.
319. The Q3 2010 10-Q contained SOX Certifications by Strange and Slusser that were
virtually identical to the certification in the 2009 10-K alleged above in paragraph 307.
320. The statements alleged in paragraphs 300-19 contained untrue statements of
material facts and/or omitted material facts required to be stated in order to make the statements
contained therein not misleading because, at the time of the Offering: i) Gentiva, in violation of
Medicare standards and regulations, sought reimbursement from Medicare for medically
unnecessary services and that Gentiva’s reported financial results, including reported increases in
revenue and profit margins (specifically revenue per episode and margins per episode) failed to
disclose that such results were materially and artificially inflated and the product of the
Company’s violation of Medicare standards and regulations; ii) that Gentiva’s compliance
program was materially defective; and iii) the SOX Certifications signed by Strange and Slusser
118
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 123 of 133 PageID #: 869
failed to disclose that Gentiva’s disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting were materially defective because they allowed Gentiva to report financial
results that were based on reimbursements from Medicare for medically unnecessary services.
321. On October 4, 2011, Gentiva’s Notes reportedly traded at $73 per unit, a 27%
decline from par value at the time the 11.5% Notes were issued.
C. Claims for Relief Under the Securities Act.
COUNT III
(Against the Securities Act Defendants for Violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act in Connection with the Offering)
322. Lead Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations above at paragraphs 1-6 as
they pertain to the Securities Act Claims and starting at paragraph 290 through 321, as if fully set
forth herein.
323. For purposes of this claim, Lead Plaintiff expressly excludes and disclaims any
allegation that could be construed as alleging or sounding in fraud or intentional or reckless
misconduct.
324. This claim is brought pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act, on behalf of all
purchasers of Gentiva 11.5% Notes in or traceable to the Offering.
325. The Registration Statements contained untrue statements of material facts and
omitted material facts required to be stated in order to make the statements contained therein not
misleading, as set forth more fully above.
326. The Individual Securities Act Defendants signed the Registration Statements or
authorized that the Registration Statements be signed on their behalf.
119
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 124 of 133 PageID #: 870
327. Gentiva is the issuer of the Offering Documents. As the issuer, Gentiva is strictly
liable to the members of the Class who purchased shares pursuant to the Registration Statements
for the materially untrue statements and omissions alleged herein.
328. Class members purchased securities issued under or traceable to Registration
Statements.
329. Class members who purchased securities pursuant to the Registration Statements
were damaged by Securities Act Defendants as a direct and proximate result of the untrue
statements and omissions in the Registration Statements.
330. This claim is brought within the applicable statute of limitations.
331. By reason of the foregoing, the Securities Act Defendants have violated Section
11 of the Securities Act.
COUNT IV
(Against the Individual Securities Act Defendants for Violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act)
332. Lead Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations above at paragraphs 1-6 as
they pertain to the Securities Act Claims and starting at paragraph 290 through 321, as if fully set
forth herein.
333. For purposes of this claim, Lead Plaintiff expressly excludes and disclaims any
allegation that could be construed as alleging or sounding in fraud or intentional or reckless
misconduct.
334. This Count is brought pursuant to Section 15 of the Securities Act on behalf of the
Class.
335. The Individual Securities Act Defendants at the time that they signed the
Registration Statements alleged to contain false and misleading statements, participated in the
120
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 125 of 133 PageID #: 871
operation and management of Gentiva and conducted and participated, directly and indirectly, in
the conduct of those Gentiva’s business affairs.
336. Because of their positions of control and authority over Gentiva and as senior
officers of Gentiva, the Individual Securities Act Defendants were able to, and did, control the
contents of the Registration Statements that contained materially false and misleading
information.
337. Each signed or caused to be signed on their behalf the Registration Statements
and caused Gentiva to file the Prospectus with the SEC and caused Gentiva to offer 11.5% notes
in the Offering. The Individual Securities Act Defendants were therefore controlling persons of
Gentiva within the meaning of Section 15 of the Securities Act.
338. The conduct alleged herein of Gentiva constitutes a violation of Section 11 of the
Securities Act.
339. The Individual Securities Act Defendants are liable to members of the Class,
jointly and severally with and to the same extent as Gentiva for violations of Section 11.
V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
340. Lead Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of a class of all persons or entities that purchased
the publicly traded securities of Gentiva during the period from July 31, 2008 through October 4,
2011, inclusive, including all persons that purchased or otherwise acquired Gentiva 11.5% Notes
in or traceable to the Offering (the “Class”).
341. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable. While the exact number of Class members is unknown to Lead Plaintiff at the
present time and can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, Lead Plaintiff believes
121
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 126 of 133 PageID #: 872
that there are hundreds of members of the Class located throughout the U.S. Throughout the
Class Period, Gentiva had over approximately 30 million shares of common stock outstanding,
which were actively traded on the Nasdaq in an efficient market and Gentiva issued $325 million
in 11.5% Notes that traded in an efficient market.
342. Lead Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class.
Lead Plaintiff and all members of the Class have sustained damages because of defendants’
unlawful activities alleged herein. Lead Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and
experienced in class and securities litigation and intends to pursue this action vigorously. The
interests of the Class will be fairly and adequately protected by Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff has
no interests which are contrary to or in conflict with those of the Class that Lead Plaintiff seeks
to represent.
343. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy. Lead Plaintiff knows of no difficulty to be encountered in the
management of this action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.
344. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and
predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class. Among the
questions of law and fact common to the Class are:
(a) whether the federal securities laws were violated by the Exchange Act
Defendants’ and the Securities Act Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein;
(b) whether the Exchange Act Defendants and the Securities Act Defendants
misstated and/or omitted to state material facts in their public statements and filings with the
SEC;
122
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 127 of 133 PageID #: 873
(c) whether the Exchange Act Defendants and the Securities Act Defendants
participated directly or indirectly in the course of conduct complained of herein; and
(d) whether the members of the Class have sustained damages and the proper
measure of such damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Lead Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: declaring this action to be a
proper class action; awarding damages, including interest; awarding reasonable costs, including
attorneys’ fees; and such equitable/injunctive relief as the Court may deem proper.
JURY DEMAND
Lead Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.
Dated: April 16, 2012 KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
By: /s/ Frederic S. Fox
Frederic S. Fox Joel B. Strauss Jeffrey P. Campisi Gwendolyn N. Cutini 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 687-1980 Fax: (212) 687-7714
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP Justin B. Farar 11111 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 620 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: (310) 575-8604 Fax: (310) 575-8697
123
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 128 of 133 PageID #: 874
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP Laurence D. King 350 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, California 94104 Tel: (415) 772-4700 Fax: (415) 772-4707
Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff the Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System and the Proposed Class
124
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 129 of 133 PageID #: 875
CERTIFICATION OF THOMAS MOUTES
I, Thomas Moutes, General Manager of the Los Angeles City Employees' Retirement
System ("LACERS"), hereby declare that:
I. I am authorized to make a certification on behalf of LACERS.
2. 1 have reviewed the Consolidated Class Action Complaint relating to In re Gentiva
Securities Litigation. (1 O-cv-5064) (ED.N.Y.) alleging violations of securities laws (the
"Action") and authorize its filing.
3. LACERS did not purchase the securities that are the subject of this action at the
direction of the plaintiffs counsel or in order to participate in any private action arising under the
federal securities laws.
4. LACERS is willing to serve as a representative party on behalf of a class, including
providing testimony at deposition and trial if necessary. LACERS fully understands the duties
and responsibilities of the Lead Plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995, specifically concerning its selection and retention of counsel and overseeing and directing
the prosecution of the action on behalf of the class.
5. LACERS' transactions in Gentiva Health Services, Inc. common stock during the
proposed class period are set forth in Schedule A hereto.
6. LACERS sought to serve as, and was appointed lead plaintiff in this Action and in
In re Sequenom, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 3 :09-cv-0092 l-LAB.WMC (S.D.
Cal.).
7. LACERS will not accept any payment for serving as a representative party on
behalf of a class beyond its pro-rata share of any recovery, except as ordered or approved by the
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 130 of 133 PageID #: 876
court, including any reward to a representative plaintiff of reasonable costs and expense directly
related to the representation of the class.
I declare under penalty of peijury that the foregoing is true and correct, executed on
this tiay of April, 2012,
THOMAS MOUTES
PA
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 131 of 133 PageID #: 877
SCHEDULE A
GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM
C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102
Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases
11/14/2008 11/18/2008 2/24/2009 3/17/2009 4/8/2009 5/7/2009 5/8/2009
5/11/2009 5/12/2009 5/13/2009 5/15/2009 5/18/2009 5/19/2009 5/20/2009 5/22/2009 5/26/2009 5/27/2009 7/22/2010 7/23/2010 7/26/2010
12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/16/2010 12/16/2010 12/16/2010 12/17/2010 12/17/2010 12/17/2010 12/17/2010 12/20/2010 12/27/2010 12/28/2010
1/13/2011 1/13/2011 1/18/2011 1/19/2011 1/21/2011 1/27/2011 1/28/2011 2/8/2011
2/17/2011 2/17/2011 2/18/2011 2/22/2011 2/23/2011 2/24/2011 2/25/2011
3/1/2011 3/8/2011
3/14/2011 3/15/2011 3/15/2011 3/16/2011 3/16/2011 3/17/2011 3/18/2011 3/21/2011 3/31/2011
1,300 800 200 700 300 500 200 400 450 150 400 600
50 300 600 300
50 950 300 150
2,600 2,900
14,400 9,700
300 500 900
8,600 1,200 7,900
400 700 300
1,400 900
4,000 2,600 5,700
12,000 900
4,800 100 256 262 130 348 292 249
1,200 252
2,300 121 800
95 2,100
35 121
13 1,300
100
$24.5409 $24.0178 $25.7494 $16.0016 $16.1500 $18.3741 $18.9716 $18.8945 $19.1800 $18.9900 $18.2273 $17.1924 $17.1857 $17.3453 $16.0981 $16.1607 $16.2124 $19.1934 $19.2270 $19.5000 $23.0998 $23.1096 $23.1283 $23.0999 $24.4500 $24.5836 $24.5251 $25.4777 $24.6472 $24.8944 $24.6982 $26.0381 $26.3994 $26.7606 $26.0951 $26.1426 $25.2354 $25.2301 $24.2396 $24.2380 $24.2368 $24.0833 $27.0542 $26.8889 $26.9846 $27.0683 $27.0131 $26.9901 $27.4534 $28.2568 $28.6117 $28.6764 $28.2777 $28.4453 $28.2281 $28.4677 $28.0286 $28.2877 $28.3353 $27.4400
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 132 of 133 PageID #: 878
SCHEDULE A
GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM
C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102
Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases Purchases
3/31/2011 3/31/2011 4/1/2011
4/13/2011 4/13/2011 4/14/2011 4/14/2011 4/15/2011
5/5/2011 5/6/2011
5/10/2011 5/11/2011 5/11/2011 6/13/2011 6/15/2011 6/16/2011 6/17/2011 6/20/2011 6/20/2011 6/21/2011 6/22/2011 6/23/2011 6/23/2011 6/27/2011 6/28/2011 6/30/2011
7/1/2011 7/15/2011
8/3/2011
76 6,600 5,200
82 123 52 83
117 114 97 86 51
147 15,000
500 2,800
11,600 45
2,300 296 230 600 267 105 164 62 71
11,100 1,000
$27.5450 $27.5498 $27.6900 $27.5229 $27.1052 $26.8109 $26.8100 $27.5477 $26.1620 $25.4536 $25.7527 $25.8386 $25.5792 $20.6778 $20.7994 $21.1210 $21.7626 $18.9294 $19.0325 $19.8501 $19.7540 $19.0488 $19.3761 $20.0762 $20.1495 $20.5913 $21.3076 $18.8656 $12.8957
Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales
GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM GENTIVA HEALTH SVCS INC COM
C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102 C37247A102
11/3/2009 11/11/2009 11/20/2009
8/1/2011 8/2/2011 8/4/2011 8/4/2011 8/5/2011 8/5/2011 8/5/2011 8/8/2011 8/9/2011
8/10/2011 8/11/2011 8/16/2011 8/17/2011 8/29/2011 8/30/2011 8/31/2011 10/3/2011 10/3/2011 10/4/2011
1,100 1,100 1,100
17,600 20,600 39,900
2,393 793
68,200 1,750
150 779 367 110 400 100
1,000 400 200 300 400
1,700
$24.3754 $23.8804 $24.0800 $14.9429 $13.8631
$8.9071 $10.5864
$8.2879 $7.5044 $7.8496 $7.6420 $6.6953 $6.2332 $6.3536 $7.5926 $7.5954 $8.2145 $7.9732 $7.8547 $3.7690 $3.7244 $2.8966
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 57 Filed 04/16/12 Page 133 of 133 PageID #: 879
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Frederic S. Fox, hereby certify that on April 16, 2012, I electronically filed the
foregoing using the Court's CM/ECF system, which will automatically send a notice of
electronic filing to counsel of record.
/s/ Frederic S. Fox Frederic S. Fox