facebook

Patient Overpayments in Florida: Why Sitting on Credits Is No Longer an Option

By: Nailah Morris

It starts with a number that looks too small to matter.

A patient pays at check-in. The claim goes out. Two weeks later, the insurer processes the EOB. Your system posts the payment. And now the account shows a credit balance: $18.42. Nobody panics. Nobody calls compliance. Nobody rushes to refund $18.42. It just sits there. Because in most organizations, patient credits live in the same place as “we will get to it after month-end” and “the vendor is working the queue.” They are treated like a back-office nuisance, not a regulatory risk.

Florida just changed that.

Effective January 1, 2026, Florida law (CS/CS/SB 1808) makes one thing painfully clear: sitting on patient overpayments is no longer an option. Once an overpayment is determined, you have 30 days to refund it, whether the delay is intentional, accidental, or caused by someone you hired. The simple truth: a credit balance is not neutral. It is a clock.

What the New Law Requires (In Plain Terms)

If you are licensed in Florida under:

  • Chapter 456, Florida Statutes (Department of Health regulated practitioners), or
  • Chapter 408 (AHCA-licensed providers),

The rule is straightforward:

  • Determine whether an overpayment occurred.
  • Refund it within 30 days of that determination.

Here is where most compliance problems will be born:

  • The trigger is not when the overpayment happened.
  • The trigger is when you knew or should have known it existed.

That “should have known” language is where the risk lives, because regulators do not audit feelings. They audit systems, timestamps, reports, and notes. If your records show the credit was visible, the question becomes simple: why did it sit?

Who Is Covered (and Who Is Not)

This statute is narrow, but it targets a very common situation.

Covered: the “patient paid up front, insurer paid later” scenario

The 30-day refund requirement applies when:

  • A patient overpaid for services, and
  • The provider submitted a claim for those services to:
    • a private insurer or HMO, or
    • a government program (Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, etc.)

Think about the everyday workflow:

  • Patient pays a copay, deductible, or coinsurance at the front desk.
  • Insurance processes the claim later.
  • The final payment reveals the patient paid too much.
  • A credit balance appears.

That is the scenario Florida is addressing.

Not covered: self-pay and insurer overpayments

The law does not apply to:

  • Self-pay/cash-pay patients.
  • Services not billed to an insurer or government program.
  • Overpayments made by insurers (those are governed by existing insurance statutes).

So this is not “every credit balance everywhere.” It is a targeted rule aimed at insured/government-billed claims where patient money is involved.

Enforcement Risk: Florida Added Teeth

Refunds are not new. What is new is the state’s willingness to treat delay as a compliance failure, not a clerical inconvenience.

If you are AHCA-licensed:

AHCA may impose administrative fines up to $500 per violation. And under existing enforcement concepts, each day the refund remains unpaid can be treated as a separate violation. That is how small credits become big problems: not because the amount is large, but because the days stack.

If you are DOH-licensed:

For physicians and other DOH-regulated professionals, failure to refund in a timely manner is grounds for discipline, including:

  • Fines.
  • Probation or restrictions.
  • In serious cases, suspension or revocation of licensure.

The uncomfortable part: even if billing is outsourced, the license is not. Simple truth: you can delegate the work, but you cannot delegate the accountability.

The Gray Area That Will Get People Hurt: When Is an Overpayment “Determined”?

The statute does not define determination with a neat, compliance-friendly timestamp. That ambiguity is not a loophole. It is a trap. In the real world, “determination” will be inferred from evidence such as:

  • Account reconciliation dates.
  • Payment posting entries.
  • System-generated alerts or credit balance reports.
  • Internal compliance reviews.
  • Documentation created by third-party billing vendors.

Here is how this goes sideways in practice:

Scenario 1 | The report exists, but nobody owns it: Your system generates a weekly credit balance report. It lands in a folder. No one reviews it for two weeks. The credits are “there,” but not “worked.” Regulators will not care that it was inconvenient. They will care that it was visible.

Scenario 2 | The EOB posts, and the clock starts quietly: Payment posting happens on Tuesday. Credit appears on Wednesday. Your team “determines” overpayments during the month-end close. Regulators may argue your system determined it the moment the credit was posted or flagged.

Scenario 3 | The vendor knew first: Your billing company flags the credit, adds a note, and puts it in a queue. You do not see it until later. The record still exists. And the license still has your name on it. Providers should assume regulators will look at records, timestamps, and system notes, not intent. If a system flags a credit balance and nothing happens, that record may become the start of the 30-day clock.

This is especially important if you use:

  • Third-party billing companies
  • Centralized revenue cycle platforms
  • Automated posting systems

Automation is not protection. It is documentation.

Why Management Companies and Billing Entities Matter More Than Ever

The statute expressly extends the refund obligation to billing departments, management companies, and group practices that accept patient payments on behalf of licensed providers. That sounds operational. It is actually governance. Because many providers are employed by or contract with large entities where they do not control refund workflows day-to-day. Yet the treating provider remains exposed.

Expect regulators to test one question:

“How do you supervise and monitor the people handling patient money under your license?”

If the answer is “I assumed the vendor handled it,” you are not describing a control. You are describing a hope.

Practical Compliance Takeaways (What to Do This Week, Not “Someday”)

This law is less about refunds and more about process discipline. If you want to reduce risk, stop treating credits as accounting leftovers and start treating them like regulated events. Here is a practical starting list:

  1. Define “determination” internally—on purpose: Pick a clear operational trigger (e.g., posting date, credit report generation date, reconciliation completion date) and document it. Ambiguity is where enforcement grows.
  2. Create a credit-balance workflow with owners and timestamps: Every credit should move through a queue: identified → validated → approved → refunded → documented.
  3. Build a 30-day tracker that cannot be ignored: If you cannot see aging, you cannot manage risk. Track credit date, “determination” date, refund due date, and completion date.
  4. Update vendor agreements to match the law: Add timeliness obligations, documentation requirements, escalation rules, and audit rights. Vendor delay should be a contract problem, not your compliance problem.
  5. Train billing staff on escalation and documentation: If a refund is delayed, the file should show why, who approved the delay, and what steps were taken. Silence reads like neglect.
  6. Update patient financial policies and scripts: Your written policies should reflect refund timelines so front desk, billing, and leadership all communicate the same expectation.

Being “too busy” or “waiting for the system to catch up” will not be a defense. It will be a record.

The Bottom Line

Florida closed a long-standing gap in patient financial protections. Beginning January 1, 2026, patient overpayments are no longer passive credits. They are time-sensitive compliance obligations. Providers who treat refunds as an afterthought risk fines, disciplinary scrutiny, and reputational harm. Providers who tighten their processes now will not only reduce regulatory exposure, they will also demonstrate transparency and accountability to patients in an era where both matter more than ever.

Simple truth to end where we started: the credit balance is not “extra work.” It is a compliance clock you can either manage or explain later.

***************************************************

It should be noted that I am not your lawyer (unless you have presently retained my services through a retainer agreement). This post is not intended as legal advice; it is purely educational and informational, and no attorney-client relationship shall result after reading it. Please consult your own attorney for legal advice. If you do not have one and would like to retain my legal services, please get in touch with me using the contact information listed above.

All information and references to laws, rules, regulations, and advisory opinions were accurate as of this time, but laws are constantly evolving. Please get in touch with me to ensure that the law governing your business is up to date. Thank you.

Florida’s Enhanced Government Enforcement on Pain Management Clinics

By: Gabriela Gonzalez

The opioid crisis in Florida has induced a transformation in government enforcement strategies. As the state grapples with the devastating effects of opioid addiction, the Florida Department of Health (DOH) has enacted regulations and intensified oversight to mitigate the overprescribing of opioids and ensure the safe operation of pain management clinics. A “pain-management clinic” is any facility that advertises pain-management services or where most patients are prescribed certain medications for chronic pain.

In parallel, the Attorney General, Ashley Moody, created a 21-member Statewide Task Force on Opioid Abuse, a comprehensive statewide drug control and substance abuse prevention program. This coordinated effort is imperative for education, prevention, treatment, recovery and law enforcement efforts. We will discuss the regulations and enforcement efforts targeting pain management clinics.

Florida Department of Health Requirements and Penalties

The DOH has implemented regulations governing the operation of pain management clinics throughout Florida. These regulations encompass several critical requirements.

All pain management clinics must register with the DOH or hold a valid certificate of exemption. Operating an unregistered pain-management clinic is a felony. Pain management clinics are subject to regular inspections to ensure their compliance with state laws and regulations. This requirement aims to maintain a baseline of operational integrity and patient safety.

The consequences for non-compliance with pain management clinic regulations can be severe. The DOH has the authority to revoke the licenses of pain management clinics that repeatedly violate state laws or regulations, as specified in Florida Statutes § 456.073. This measure serves as a deterrent against unethical practices. The department can impose substantial financial penalties on clinics that engage in illegal or unethical behaviors, further emphasizing the importance of adherence to regulatory standards. The DOH may impose fines of up to $5,000 per violation for non-compliance with regulations. The department will consider the severity of the violation, the clinic’s efforts to correct it, previous violations, and the financial benefits gained from the violation when determining if a penalty is necessary and its amount. In certain instances, the DOH may refer cases to law enforcement for criminal prosecution. This step underscores Florida’s commitment to holding clinics accountable.

Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP)

A crucial component of Florida’s strategy to combat opioid misuse is the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP). The Florida PDMP was established in 2009 to track controlled substance prescriptions and combat drug abuse and diversion.

The PDMP allows healthcare providers to access a patient’s prescription history before prescribing controlled substances. This accessibility helps identify patients who may be “doctor shopping” or obtaining prescriptions from multiple providers, thereby reducing the risk of overprescribing and misuse. The DOH closely monitors the prescribing practices of physicians affiliated with pain management clinics through the PDMP. The PDMP data can be utilized by law enforcement agencies to investigate potential drug abuse and unlawful prescribing practices further enhancing the state’s ability to tackle the opioid crisis.

Additional State-Enacted Laws

In addition to the PDMP, Florida has enacted several other laws aimed at addressing the opioid epidemic. Legislation imposes limits on the quantity of opioids that can be prescribed for acute pain, restricting initial prescriptions to a three-day supply.

Florida law mandates that healthcare providers complete continuing education on the safe prescribing of controlled substances. This requirement aims to equip providers with the necessary knowledge to make informed prescribing decisions and recognize the signs of substance use disorders.

To combat opioid overdoses, Florida has enacted laws to expand access to naloxone, an opioid overdose reversal medication. Pharmacists are permitted to dispense naloxone without a prescription, and various state programs promote its distribution among at-risk populations.

Florida’s Opioid Task Force

In addition to the regulatory measures implemented by the DOH, the Florida Attorney General’s Office has launched the Opioid Task Force. The Task Force on Opioid Abuse was created to research and assess the nature of opioid drug abuse in Florida and develop a statewide strategy to identify best practices to combat the opioid epidemic through education, treatment, prevention, recovery and law enforcement.

The Attorney General’s Office collaborates with law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute those involved in the illegal distribution of opioids. This collaborative approach enhances the effectiveness of enforcement efforts and helps dismantle networks contributing to the crisis. The Attorney General’s Office has taken proactive legal measures by filing lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies and other entities implicated in the opioid crisis. These lawsuits seek monetary damages and injunctive relief, holding accountable those who have played a role in the proliferation of opioid misuse.

Some of Florida’s efforts to combat the opioid crisis have centered on strengthening regulations and enforcement measures targeting pain management clinics. The Florida Department of Health has implemented rigorous oversight to ensure compliance with state laws, including regular inspections and the imposition of penalties for non-compliance. Additionally, the Attorney General’s Office has taken a proactive approach, collaborating with law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute those involved in the illegal distribution of opioids. Florida remains vigilant in monitoring pain management clinics, prosecuting offenders, and promoting responsible prescribing practices.

*****************************************************

It should be noted that I am not your lawyer (unless you have presently retained my services through a retainer agreement). This post is not intended as legal advice, it is purely educational and informational, and no attorney-client relationship shall result after reading it. Please consult your own attorney for legal advice. If you do not have one and would like to retain my legal services, please contact me using the contact information listed above.

All information and references made to laws, rules, regulations, and advisory opinions were accurate based on the law as it existed at this time, but laws are constantly evolving. Please contact me to be sure that the law which will govern your business is current. Thank you.

Antitrust Battle Against COPA Laws

In an effort to prevent anticompetitive behavior in the American healthcare marketplace, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has recently turned its attention to the rise in hospital mergers facilitated through the use of Certificate of Public Advantage (COPA) laws.

COPAs allow state agencies to approve proposed mergers among healthcare facilities following a satisfactory determination that the advantages of the merger outweigh the anticompetitive effects of consolidation in the healthcare marketplace.[1] Typically, the state departments of health are charged with supervising and regulating mergers exercised under COPAs.[2]

The FTC asserts that COPAs function as a mechanism to shield hospital mergers from scrutiny under state and federal antitrust laws subject to state action doctrine.[3] The FTC argues that hospital mergers granted pursuant to COPAs are destined to cause adverse effects in the marketplace, such as higher prices for patients seeking medical care, a decline in the quality of care rendered, and a reduced level of access to various medical services.[4]

It appears that the FTC is concerned that these mergers will eventually result in a heavily consolidated hospital market under the control of a single health system. Studies on the effects of these mergers released by the FTC shows a general increase in commercial inpatient prices by a minimum of 20%.[5] The FTC is also concerned that these mergers pursued under the gloss of COPAs fail to boost wages for hospital employees due to a reduced supply in employment opportunities.[6]

Hospital executives that advocate for mergers through use of COPAs often cite cost savings and efficiencies that could improve patient outcomes following consolidation.[7] Hospital systems nationwide have faced significant financial pressures stemming from rising costs for labor, drugs, and medical supplies in the years following the disturbance caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.[8]

Recently, on September 5, 2024, the FTC has challenged Indiana’s first proposed merger under the state’s COPA, enacted in 2021, referencing the same arguments mentioned above.[9] The FTC has urged the Indiana Department of Health and state lawmakers to oppose the consolidation of Union Hospital and Terre Haute Regional Hospital.[10]

Both hospitals are in Vigo County, located near Indiana’s western border. According to the Indiana Department of Health’s county health scorecard, Vigo County experiences serious public health challenges, particularly ranking in the bottom third among Indiana counties for life expectancy and bottom half for adult obesity.[11] To solve these challenges, Union Health and Terre Haute believe this partnership will enhance patients’ access to quality medical care, create synergies of medical expertise between healthcare providers at both hospitals, and lower costs.[12] The FTC has submitted a comment to the Indiana Department of Health generally objecting to the proposed merger in an effort to dissuade the agency from approving the same.[13]

COPAs exist in Florida but are commonly invoked for rural hospital system mergers and related cooperative agreements. Specifically, Florida Statute Section 381.04065 states the consolidation of hospital networks or technologies between members of rural health networks do not violate state or federal antitrust laws when such arrangements improve the quality of health care and moderate cost increases.[14] The Florida Department of Health is charged with the duty of approving and supervising rural hospital networks that seek to merge under this statute.[15] The state legislature views this policy as a proper means “to facilitate the provision of quality, cost-efficient medical care to rural patients.”[16]

Conclusion

Hospital mergers will continue to be a prevalent option for providers seeking to deliver care more efficiently and maintain healthy operating margins. Indeed, such mergers will see an uptick as financial challenges continue to mount for hospitals. As such, the FTC will be keen on limiting the scope of these proposed mergers under COPAs to achieve its mission of protecting American consumers from anticompetitive business practices that disrupt the healthcare industry.

 

[1] Federal Trade Commission, COPA Policy Paper, (August 15, 2022), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/COPA_Policy_Paper.pdf.

[2] Id.

[3] Federal Trade Commission, Certificates of Public Advantage (COPAS), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/features/certificates-public-advantage-copas (last accessed September 13, 2024).

[4] Id.

[5] COPA Policy Paper, at 3.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] American Hospital Association, New AHA Report Finds Financial Challenges Mount for Hospitals & Health Systems Putting Access to Care at Risk, (April 20, 2023), https://www.aha.org/press-releases/2023-04-20-new-aha-report-finds-financial-challenges-mount-hospitals-health-systems-putting-access-care-risk.

[9] Rebecca Pifer, FTC Opposes Indiana’s First Hospital Merger Under Controversial COPA Law, Healthcare Dive, (September 6, 2024), https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/ftc-opposes-indiana-hospital-copa-union-terre-haute-merger/726253/.

[10] Id.

[11] Health First Indiana, County Health Scorecard, https://www.in.gov/healthfirstindiana/county-health-scorecard/ (last updated June 4, 2024).

[12] Union Health, Union Health and Terre Haute Regional Hospital Merger, https://union.health/upload/docs/UnionHealth/merger/UnionHealthTerreHauteRegionalMergerFAQ.pdf (last accessed September 13, 2024).  

[13] Federal Trade Commission, Federal Trade Commission Staff Submission to Indiana Health Department Regarding the Certificate of Public Advantage Application of Union Health and Terre Haute Regional Hospital, (September 5, 2024), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/in_copa_comment_9-5-24_public_redacted.pdf.

[14] Fla. Stat. § 381.04065.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

*****************************************************

It should be noted that I am not your lawyer (unless you have presently retained my services through a retainer agreement). This post is not intended as legal advice, it is purely educational and informational, and no attorney-client relationship shall result after reading it. Please consult your own attorney for legal advice. If you do not have one and would like to retain my legal services, please contact me using the contact information listed above.

All information and references made to laws, rules, regulations, and advisory opinions were accurate based on the law as it existed at this time, but laws are constantly evolving. Please contact me to be sure that the law which will govern your business is current. Thank you.