The Issue Whether the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint, which is the subject of Case Number 01-2295, reflect statements of agency policy which should have been adopted as rules pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties United is a foreign insurer, domiciled in the State of Wisconsin holding a certificate of authority from the Department to transact the business of insurance in this state. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Medical Securities Group, Inc. The Department, through its agency head, the Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner, has regulatory jurisdiction over United in connection with certain matters set forth in the Complaint. The regulatory scheme for out-of-state health insurance companies Health insurance companies operating pursuant to in-state regulatory schemes are subject to oversight regulation of the corporate entity including financial solvency and market conduct. Rates are required to be filed and approved prior to being used in the state. The review process involves a review of the rates to determine if they are reasonable in relation to the benefits provided. In regard to this, the Department has rules which it has adopted pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, which it uses to determine the standards and formulae for making that determination. Certain out-of-state health insurers, such as United, are not subject to such stringent regulation. No review of premium rates is conducted by the Department in the case of these insurers, but it would be incorrect to state that they are not subject to regulation by the Department at all. Approximately 40 percent of the health insurance market in Florida is written through out-of-state group arrangements that do not provide policyholders consumer protections afforded to policyholders holding in-state policies regulated by the Department. United is required by Florida law to provide certain types of coverage. United must also ensure that certificates of coverage provided to residents of Florida contain the following language: The benefits of the policy providing your coverage are governed primarily by the law of a state other than Florida. Indent Background At all times pertinent, American Medical Security, Inc. (AMS), was a Florida-licensed administrator authorized to market and administer United's out-of-state group health insurance plans in Florida. AMS, like United, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Medical Securities Group, Inc. In May 1993, United, through AMS, filed for approval with the Department pursuant to Section 627.5515(2), Florida Statutes (1993), as an out-of-state group health insurer who would provide policies to be offered through an Alabama entity called the Prescription For Good Health Trust, which was formed primarily for the purpose of providing group insurance. The Department approved this filing. On March 2, 1995, the Department participated by conference call in a Regulatory Task Force of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The mission of the task force was to attempt to address a number of problems facing the insurance market. One of the problems discussed was rate protection for consumers when faced with "tier rating" or "tier blocking." The two terms are synonymous and mean, as to group health insurance, reclassifying insureds subsequent to having been initially placed in a class. This practice will be discussed in more detail below. In 1996, United made a filing for the Prescription For Good Health Trust which proposed tier rating. Sometime during 1996, after the Department objected to the filing, United withdrew it. The Department had never seen such a filing previously. United is the only health insurer to assert before the Department that reclassification by movement between classes would be permissible under the Florida Insurance Code. Section 627.6515(1), Florida Statutes, provides that a group health insurance policy issued or delivered outside this state under which a resident of Florida is provided coverage, shall comply with the provisions of Part VII, of Chapter 627, Florida Statutes, in the same manner as health policies issued within the state. Part VII of Chapter 627, Florida Statutes, provides for a comprehensive regulatory scheme for group health insurance. Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, however, sets forth a number of exemptions. Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, provides an exemption for an insurer like United, which provides health insurance through an association formed for a purpose other than that of offering insurance, which provides the language referred to in paragraph 5, supra, on the face of the certificate, and which offers the bundle of coverages provided in Subsection (c). This exemption applied to the Prescription For Good Health Trust. The Department concedes that it has no authority to set premium rates for out-of-state insurers like United. In November 1996, United through AMS, filed with the Department, pursuant to Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, a request for approval of an out-of-state group health insurance policy termed the "MedOne Choice" plan. This plan was to be offered through an Ohio association called the Taxpayers' Network, Inc. (TNI). The association was formed primarily for purposes other than providing insurance. In January, 1997, the filing was accepted by the Department as meeting the requirements of Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes. Chapter 96-223, Laws of Florida, created Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, effective May 25, 1996. When created, the section only addressed the renewability of individual coverage. Chapter 97-179, Laws of Florida, substantially amended Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, effective May 30, 1997. Subsequent to the amendment, the section addressed certificates of coverage offered to individuals in the state as part of a group policy. This statute, along with Sections 627.6571 and 627.6487, Florida Statutes, implemented the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The basic theory of the HIPAA legislation is that an insurance company cannot simply cancel a health insurance policy without providing other options. On or about September 25, 1998, United, through AMS, notified all Prescription For Good Health Trust certificate holders that the policy forms through which their coverage had been provided were being discontinued, effective as of each certificate holder's 1999 renewal date. Upon discontinuance of the Prescription For Good Health Trust Plans, the only United health insurance plans available in Florida were the MedOne Choice plans offered through TNI. Membership in TNI was available to anyone upon submitting an application form and paying the membership fee. Membership in TNI was a prerequisite to continuance of a persons' health insurance coverage under United's MedOne Choice plan. United guaranteed each certificate holder, upon joining TNI, that upon request, they would be issued coverage under the Classic Benefit Plan (one of the TNI MedOne Choice plans) without regard to their health status. However, there was no guarantee that premiums would not rise. Certificate holders were also advised that if they desired coverage under a MedOne Choice plan other than the guaranteed issue Classic Benefit plan, they could apply for any of the other TNI plans. Only if the applicant met the underwriting guidelines for the plan for which they applied, would they be issued coverage under another MedOne Choice plan. Between October 1998 and early January 1999, United responded to questions and concerns raised by the Department about the decision to discontinue the Prescription For Good Health Trust plan, and whether the plan of discontinuance was in compliance with Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes. Specifically, discussions were had concerning the movement of insureds from the class in which they were originally assigned to another class at the time of renewal. United entered an agreement with the Department on January 14, 1999, whereby United would offer to certificate holders an additional guaranteed issue TNI plan and would cap the rate for the guaranteed issue plans at no more than twice the premium then currently being paid for the discontinued Prescription For Good Health Trust plan. In accordance with this agreement, United notified certificate holders of the additional guaranteed issue option available to them. Later in 1999, United discontinued the trust plan in accordance with their agreement with the Department. During the process of discontinuance, no certificate holder requested conversion coverage under Section 627.6675, Florida Statutes. Section 627.6675, Florida Statutes, provides that an insured may assert his or her right to a "converted policy," which provides for certain health insurance continuation rights. The Department determined that United's rate for the conversion policy, pursuant to the agreement, was within 200 percent of the standard risk rate and that the notice of the conversion privilege was contained in the certificate of coverage issued to Florida residents. Thus, the Department concluded that United was in compliance with the agreement of January 14, 1999. On May 19, 1999, a Department letter informed a consumer that the discontinuance of her coverage by United did not mean she was being discriminated against because the policy had been terminated for all members. The letter further recited that the Department did not have the ability to regulate United because it was not domiciled in Florida and her insurance was being provided to a group, referring to TNI, that was not registered in Florida. On July 27, 1999, a Department letter informed a consumer that United had an obligation to offer a replacement policy but that United had the right to underwrite the policy and charge additional premium. This statement also referred to TNI. Section 627.6425(1), Florida Statutes, provides that "except as otherwise provided in this section, an insurer that provides individual health insurance coverage to an individual shall renew or continue in force such coverage at the option of the individual." For the purpose of the aforementioned Section, the term "individual health insurance" means health insurance coverage, as described in Section 627.6561(5)(a)2, Florida Statutes, offered to an individual in the state, "including certificates of coverage offered to individuals in the state as part of a group policy issued to an association outside this state. " As noted earlier, Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, is one of the statutes enacted in Florida which implemented HIPAA. HIPAA provides for continuation of health insurance of an insureds health policy but does not limit the premiums which an insurer can charge for coverage. Although Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, does not have the words "guaranteed renewable" contained within the statute, the gist of the statute is that if a person has a health policy, the person has the right to continued coverage. The Department contends that the statute also means that there can be no reclassification or movement between classes at the time of renewal. On March 30, 2000, the Department notified United that it believed the discontinuance of Prescription For Good Health Trust plan, in accordance with the January 1999 agreement, may have violated Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes. A Department publication dated January 4, 2001, entitled, "The Florida Health Insurance Market, Issues and Possible Market Reform Measures," noted that there are "an increasing number of carriers attempting to establish HIPAA eligible individuals as a separate rating class with premium charges ranging from 300 to 500 percent of standard rates. While the Department has found such a rating practice to be in violation of the Florida Insurance Code, many carriers have continued to protest this interpretation. Carriers contend the surcharge practice is both actuarially sound and interpreted as a HIPAA permissible practice by other states." In the 2001 legislative session, the Department sought additional regulatory authority concerning out-of-state group insurers, such as United, along with numerous other changes to the Florida Insurance Code which are unrelated to the issues addressed in this Order. The Florida Legislature failed to approve the requested legislation. Tier rating When a group health policy is underwritten, the members of the group may be divided into classes. The classes are based on risk, which is a function of the probability of claims and the cost of claims. Classes may be denominated, for example, as preferred, manual, and substandard. Very healthy persons are put in the preferred class and pay lower premiums relative to other classes. Average persons are put in the manual class because the likelihood and cost of claims may be average. Persons who for actuarial reasons are determined to have an above-average likelihood of claims and whose claims are apt to be costly, are placed in the substandard class. It, perhaps, goes without saying that the individuals in the substandard class must pay higher premiums for the same coverage as others in the group. If the group health policy is guaranteed renewable, certificate holders may continue their coverage. However, premiums within a class can be increased. It is general industry practice to increase the premiums by class when the time for renewal occurs, if the loss experience is such that there is a requirement to increase premiums. As earlier noted, the Department asserts that only by raising premiums for an entire class may premiums be raised. The Department insists that this requirement is part of the definition of "guaranteed renewable." It became United's practice to move insureds between classes. Therefore, for instance, if a person in the group who had been a member of the preferred class experienced the need for costly medical services, then that person might be moved to the manual or substandard class. This would inevitably result in that person paying an increased premium. On the other hand, a person in the substandard class, who was subsequently determined to be a good risk, might be moved to the preferred or manual class and experience reduced premiums as a result. When a substandard class becomes populated with persons who cause the payment of costly claims, premiums increase within that class. Premiums may increase to the point where persons egress the plan, which leaves the class with fewer and sicker members. Eventually, under such a plan, there will be no members, because the premiums will inflate to the point that the benefits, in relation to the amount of the premium, will render the plan uneconomical. This sequence of events is often referred to as the health insurance "death spiral." One of the asserted evils which the Department seeks to combat in the Complaint is the "death spiral." HIPAA eligibles In 1996, when HIPAA became law and Florida enacted laws to implement it, a practice sometimes referred to as "rating up" occurred among some carriers in the industry. As noted earlier, HIPAA and the state statutes implementing it, guarantee that an individual, who through no fault of his own, loses his or her group health insurance coverage has the opportunity to obtain substitute health insurance. A person in this category is referred to as HIPAA eligible. Companies providing insurance under these laws are cognizant of the fact that persons in good health generally decline to purchase this type of insurance but that persons who are in bad health, and who will, therefore, likely have costly claims, will purchase it if they can afford it. This results in a desire on the part of insurers, to charge higher premiums for HIPAA eligible persons than they might charge persons in a comparable, non-HIPAA plan. It is a permissible underwriting practice to take into consideration age, health, and a myriad of other actuarial considerations when developing premium rates for HIPAA eligibles. If an insurer factors in the knowledge that unhealthy persons are more likely than healthy persons to obtain a policy based on HIPAA and charge higher premiums as a result, then "rating up" occurs. The Department contends in its Complaint that "rating up" is discriminatory and, therefore, forbidden by the Unfair Insurance Trade Practices Act (UITPA), Section 626.951, et seq., Florida Statutes. United allegedly arrives at rates for HIPAA eligibles solely based on the fact that the individuals are HIPAA eligible which if true, would be "rating up." Immediately prior to April 30, 1998, the Department received a memorandum from the federal Health Care Financing Administration addressing three general problems with insurance practices regarding HIPAA eligibles. One of the three problems addressed in the memorandum was the practice of "rating up." In response, the Department issued Informational Memorandum 98-103M on April 30, 1998, addressing the three problems. The Department announced that it had concerns similar to that of the Health Care Financing Administration, and would address them in administrative rules implementing HIPAA and Chapter 97-179, Laws of Florida. However, no rules addressing these concerns have been adopted. Insurance carriers disagree with the Department as to whether "rating up" is unfairly discriminatory and therefore a violation of the UITPA. The Department is addressing these differences on a case-by-case basis in the course of market conduct examinations. The evidence adduced at the hearing did not elucidate exactly what "addressing these differences on a case-by-case basis in the course of market conduct examinations" means. Count Three in the Complaint represents the first time an administrative action has been brought against an insurer addressing this practice. The definition of guaranteed renewable Chapter 4-149, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled "Filing of Forms and Rates for Life and Health Insurance." Rule 4-149.006(4)(o)3, Florida Administrative Code, provides for a definition of "guaranteed renewable." However, Chapter 4-149, Florida Administrative Code, does not address out-of-state group health insurers, such as United, because the Department has no authority to require the filing of forms and rates in the case of out-of-state health insurers like United. A life and health insurance treatise written by Black and Skipper states that the definitions of the categories of renewable health insurance policies are not uniform among the states. It is the Department's position that Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, applies to out-of-state trusts, such as United's Prescription For Good Health Trust, even though the word "trust" is not used in the statute. It is apparent that if there is no limit on the amount of premium a health insurer can charge at the time of renewal, a guarantee of renewal can be meaningless. This fact is ameliorated by rate-setting in the case of highly regulated health insurers such as domestic insurers. In the context of this case, it is not the renewability of a policy that is the gist of the problem. Rather, it is whether rates can be increased on persons through the movement of insureds from one class to another. The allegations of the Complaint In order to determine which statements are alleged to be unadopted rules, it is necessary to refer to Counts Two through Seven of the Complaint. These counts will be summarized, in seriatim. Count Two alleges that persons who continued their participation in TNI were unlawfully and unfairly discriminated against because some members were reclassified based on their health status present at that time (1999), rather than being retained in the class in which they resided when the policy was initially issued. The Petition alleges, inter alia, that this practice violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, which is a section in the UITPA. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Three alleges that all of those individuals formerly covered through the Prescription For Good Health Trust who were at the time of their discontinuance HIPAA eligible, were, arbitrarily and without regard to health status, assigned a premium rate of either three or five times the base rate for TNI as a whole. Count Three alleges that this assignment unfairly discriminated against the HIPAA eligible individuals who were of the same actuarially supportable class and essentially the same hazard. Count Three further alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Four alleges that the enactment of Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, in 1996, as amended in 1997, statutorily determined that the Prescription For Good Health Trust plan was "guaranteed renewable" as that term is used and understood in the insurance industry. It further alleged that the term "guaranteed renewable” means that once an insurer classifies an individual as a member of an actuarially supportable class for rate and premium applicable to the specified coverage, that individual may not thereafter be charged a premium which is different from any other member of the same class and cannot be moved to another class. The complaint states that United unlawfully moved insureds from one class to another. Count Four additionally alleged that when United discontinued the Prescription For Good Health Trust, the prerequisite for individuals to obtain renewed health insurance coverage was reclassification of some of those individuals to different actuarially supportable classes based on their health status then pertinent to those individuals. It was further alleged that higher premiums were charged to approximately 70 percent of those who renewed or continued, and that premium increases of 200 percent to 300 percent were experienced. Count Four asserted that Section 627.6425(3), Florida Statutes, prohibits such reclassification. Count Four also alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because such reclassification was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Five alleges that on the one year anniversary of renewal with TNI, United unlawfully reclassified additional individuals which resulted in a premium increases of up to 60 percent. Count Five alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because this action was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Six alleges that within the tier blocks described in Count Two, United unlawfully established numerous sub- classifications based on health related factors pertinent to each individual within that class. It is alleged in the Complaint that these sub-classifications resulted in individuals within the same class being charged a different premium than are other members of the class. Count Six alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because this action was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Seven alleges that United used a point debit system where an arithmetic number of points are assigned to a corresponding health hazard. The higher the cumulative debit score, the higher the premium. United will decline to insure at all if the cumulative debit score gets sufficiently high. Count Seven alleges that the assignment of points with no criteria for decision-making results in arbitrary and discriminatory point scores. Count Seven alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. In summary, the three statements alleged to be rules are: Practicing tier rating is discriminatory and violates the UITPA. Placing HIPAA-eligible individuals in a premium classification solely on the basis of their HIPAA eligible status is discriminatory and violates the UITPA. The term "guaranteed renewable" prohibits the classification of individuals in a health insurance group at a time other than at the inception of coverage.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Leonard Louis Zanello, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Financial Services on October 16, 2008, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for, among other things, the investigation and prosecution of complaints against individuals licensed to conduct insurance business in Florida. Ch. 626, Fla. Stat. Respondent Leonard Louis Zanello is currently and was at the times relevant, licensed in Florida as a health agent (02-40), and a life and health agent (02-18). Mr. Zanello’s license number is A293282. Count I: Failure to Submit Florida Office of Financial Regulation Order to the Department. On June 12, 2003, the Florida Office of Financial Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the “OFR”), f/k/a the Florida Office of Financial Institutions and Securities Regulation, entered a Final Order against Mr. Zanello in a case styled In Re Leonard Zanello, Administrative Proceeding No. 0663-I-3/02 (the OFR Order). The OFR Order related to alleged violations by Mr. Zanello of Florida securities laws. No copy of the OFR Order was submitted to the Department by Mr. Zanello within 30 days after it was entered as required by Section 626.536, Florida Statutes. Nor has a copy of the OFR Order ever been submitted by Mr. Zanello to the Department. Mr. Zanello’s claim that he provided a copy of the OFR Order to Carl Morstadt, Esquire, an attorney at the time with the OFR, was unconvincing and has not been credited. Some of the reasons for rejecting Mr. Zanello’s testimony on this issue have been more fully described in paragraphs 8(2) through (4) of the Department’s Proposed Recommended Order. Those proposed findings are incorporated into this Recommended Order by this reference. Count II: Failure to Submit Securities and Exchange Commission Order to the Department. On January 7, 2004, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “SEC”), entered an Order against Mr. Zanello in a case styled In the Matter of Louis L. Zanello, Sr., Admin. Proceeding File No. 3- 11370 (hereinafter referred to as the “SEC Order”). The SEC Order involves violations by Mr. Zanello of Federal securities laws. As admitted by Mr. Zanello, no copy of the SEC Order was submitted to the Department by him within 30 days after it was entered as required by Section 626.536, Florida Statutes. Nor has a copy of the SEC Order ever been submitted by Mr. Zanello to the Department. Mr. Zanello’s claim that he was unaware of the SEC Order was unconvincing and has not been credited. Some of the reasons for rejecting Mr. Zanello’s testimony on this issue have been more fully described in paragraph 15 of the Department’s Proposed Recommended Order. Those proposed findings are incorporated into this Recommended Order by this reference. Count III: Misstatement in the Sale of an Insurance Policy and Twisting. On January 3, 2004, Mr. Zanello met with Ms. Anne Paul of Coconut Creek, Florida. Ms. Paul was 80 years of age at the time she met with Mr. Zanello. At the January 3, 2004, meeting with Ms. Paul, Mr. Zanello sold her a long-term care insurance policy with AF&L Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “AF&L”). When she purchased the AF&L insurance policy (hereinafter referred to as the “AF&L Policy”), Ms. Paul already had a long-term care insurance policy. That policy was with Kanawha Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “Kanawha”)(the long-term care insurance policy from Kanawha will hereinafter be referred to as the “Kanawha Policy”). Shortly after her meeting with Mr. Zanello, Ms. Paul informed Rita Baskin, whom Ms. Paul then regarded as her “financial advisor,” of her purchase of the AF&L Policy. Ms. Baskin convinced Ms. Paul that the AF&L Policy was not as beneficial as her Kanawha Policy and that she should immediately cancel the AF&L Policy. Why Ms. Baskin, who is now deceased, told Ms. Paul that the Kanawha Policy was a better product and, more importantly, why Ms. Paul believed that the Kanawha Policy was a better long-term care insurance policy than the AF&L Policy were not proven at hearing. Regardless of the specific reasons why, in reliance on Ms. Baskin’s advice, Ms. Paul cancelled the AF&L Policy. Ms. Paul testified by telephone during the hearing of this matter. Ms. Paul testified that she had informed Mr. Zanello about her Kanawha Policy at the time she purchased the AF&L Policy. She also testified that she agreed to purchase the AF&L Policy in complete reliance upon Mr. Zanello’s representation to her that the AF&L Policy was a better product than the Kanawha Policy. Ms. Paul’s testimony came more than five years after she had purchased the AF&L Policy (she was more than 85 years of age at the time of the hearing), and she had suffered a broken wrist the Friday before the hearing. Her arm was in a cast, she was taking no pain medication, and she indicated that she was in distress from pain during her testimony. In light of these facts and others, Ms. Paul’s testimony concerning what she told Mr. Zanello and her reliance upon representations from him concerning which policy was better was not clear and convincing. Ms. Paul’s testimony in this regard has, therefore, been rejected. Based upon the totality of the evidence in this case, the evidence simply failed to prove clearly and convincingly what transpired on January 3, 2004, when Mr. Zanello sold Ms. Paul the AF&L Policy, other than the fact that Ms. Paul purchased the AF&L Policy. D. Count IV: Misstatement on Insurance Application. Question 2 of Part IV of the AF&L Policy application signed by Ms. Paul, asks the following: Do you now or within the last 12 months had [sic] another Long-term Care, Nursing Home, or Home Health Care Insurance policy in force (including health care service or health maintenance organization contracts)? Question 3 of Part IV of the AF&L Policy application asks the following: Will this policy replace any of your medical, health or long-term care insurance? Mr. Zanello completed Part IV of the application for the AF&L Policy, asking Ms. Paul the questions and recording her answers. The answer to Questions 2 and 3 of Part IV of the application recorded by Mr. Zanello is “No.” Because the evidence failed to prove clearly and convincingly that Ms. Paul informed Mr. Zanello of the Kanawha Policy, the evidence failed to prove that incorrect answers to Questions 2 and 3 of Part IV of the application for the AF&L Policy were knowingly filled in by Mr. Zanello. If Mr. Zanello had been aware that Ms. Paul was replacing her Kanawha Policy with the AF&L Policy, which the evidence failed to prove, he was required to provide her with a “Notice to Applicant Regarding Replacement.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69O-157.016(2). While Ms. Paul was not provided a copy of a Notice to Applicant Regarding Replacement by Mr. Zanello, the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Zanello knowingly failed to provide the Notice to her.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department finding that Leonard Louis Zanello violated the provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint and described, supra; dismissing Counts III and IV of the Administrative Complaint; and suspending his licenses for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Alan Fox, Senior Attorney Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Leonard Louis Zanello, Sr. 1074 Northwest 121st Lane Coral Springs, Florida 33071-5005 Tracey Beal, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
Findings Of Fact Respondent administers the State of Florida Employees' Group Health Self Insurance Plan as a self insurance plan pursuant to Section 110.123(5), Florida Statutes. Prior to October 1 1981, Petitioner was an employee of the Department of Natural Resources. For some period of time, Petitioner purchased coverage under that health insurance plan. When she married an employee of the federal postal service, she dropped her health insurance with the State of Florida, since she preferred health insurance coverage under her husband's Policy with the federal government. Petitioner's employment with the Department of Natural Resources was reclassified so that she became a member of the Senior Management Service during September or October 1981. One of the benefits available to Senior Management Service employees is coverage under the State of Florida Employees' Group Health Self Insurance Plan free of charge to the employee. In the case of a Senior Management Service employee who accepts coverage under that Plan, the employing agency pays the full premium cost for the employee. On September 18, 1981, Ginger Bailey, an employee in the personnel office of the Department of Natural Resources, typed in the required information on insurance application forms for the various insurance policies available to Petitioner when her Senior Management status became effective on October 1, 1981. Bailey took the application forms to Petitioner, who was too busy at the time to discuss with Bailey the different insurance policies available and the forms themselves. Bailey left the forms with Petitioner. On October 8, 1981, Petitioner went to the personnel office so that Bailey could review with her the insurance benefits available to Senior Management status employees. Bailey explained each available insurance policy to the Petitioner individually and, for each, offered Petitioner an application form already completed by her. Petitioner accepted the offer of State-paid life insurance and disability insurance by signing the application form for such insurance in the acceptance block. When Bailey explained to Petitioner the health insurance, Petitioner commented that she would not need the insurance because her husband's policy was so good. Accordingly, Bailey directed Petitioner's attention to the portion of the application marked in bold letters, "Refusal." Petitioner signed the refusal portion of the application and dated her signature. Bailey struck through the September 18, 1981, date she had previously filled in for Petitioner in the acceptance section of the application. At no time did Bailey or any other agent or employee of the Department of Natural Resources or of the Department of Administration represent or state to Petitioner that she was covered by or was a member of the State of Florida Employees' Group Health Self Insurance Plan. In June 1982, Petitioner obtained a copy of the State of Florida Employees' Group Health Self Insurance Booklet containing an explanation of benefits effective July 1, 1982. On a sheet of paper, Petitioner typed the name of the Plan, the name and address of the administrator of the Plan, the group number, and the policy number. She taped this slip of paper to the front of the Booklet. During the month of June 1982, Petitioner's husband's 20-year-old daughter was admitted to a hospital. Petitioner showed hospital employees the health insurance explanation Booklet with the information she had placed on the front of it, since she could not "find" her insurance card, and the hospital accepted Petitioner's representations as proof of insurance. Coverage for Petitioner's stepdaughter was no longer available on Petitioner's husband's insurance policy, since she was over 19 years of age. Petitioner submitted a claim form to Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., the administrator of the State of Florida Employees' Group Health Self Insurance Plan. The claim submitted by Petitioner to the Plan was rejected for lack of coverage. No evidence was presented as to whether a Senior Management Service employee's family members receive free coverage under the State's health insurance plan, and no evidence was presented as to whether Petitioner had any legal or financial responsibility for her adult stepdaughter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's request that she be deemed covered by the State of Florida Employees' Group Health Self Insurance Plan from and after October 1, 1981, without prejudice to the Petitioner's right to apply, if she desires, for prospective coverage under the Plan in accordance with the Plan's requirements, rules and regulations. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Mary L. Davis Post Office Box 753 Havana, Florida 32333 Kevin X. Crowley, Esquire Department of Natural Resources Douglas Building, Suite 1003 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nevin G. Smith, Secretary Department of Administration 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact In December of 1985, the Petitioner and his dependents were covered by the State Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan. Robert S. Coughlin, the Petitioner's nineteen-year-old dependent, was hospitalized in an out-of-state hospital from December 24, 1985, to December 26, 1985. The total expense for the hospitalization was $935.00. A claim for insurance benefits to cover the expense was received by the Insurance Plan administrator on August 10, 1987. The claim was filed by the hospital on behalf of the insured dependent, Robert S. Coughlin. The administrator for the Respondent refused to pay the claim as it was not submitted within the sixteen-month period set forth in the contract of insurance. The contract, which is referred to as the benefit document, contains a policy exclusion which provides that no payment shall be made under the Plan for claims made after the expiration of the sixteen-month time limit which begins to run from the date medical expenses are incurred. The hospital did not timely file the claim because a mix-up had occurred during the hospital admission concerning the patient's insurance coverage. The dependent, Robert S. Coughlin, was unconscious during his emergency out-of-state hospital admission. Either the hospital personnel or the dependent's friends mistakenly used the information on another insurance card located in the patient's wallet as the applicable insurance. As the hospital directly filed the claim with the first insurance company, processing delays within the first company caused the hospital to miss the filing deadline for the actual insurance benefits. The Petitioner, Charles R. Coughlin, was not made aware of the situation until after the sixteen-month dime period had expired, and the claim for payment had been refused by the Respondent.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's claim against her state group health insurance company for services related to a Magnetic Resonance Imaging examination (MRI) should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was employed by the State of Florida and was a participant in the State of Florida group health insurance plan, which is a self-insured plan administered by the State of Florida in conjunction with the plan's third party administrator, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida (BCBSF). This plan is frequently referred to as the PPO Plan, an acronym for preferred provider organization. Prior to April 26, 2002, Petitioner's physician detected a lump in Petitioner's right breast. Petitioner's physician ordered mammography and ultrasound examinations to be performed on Petitioner's right breast. Those examinations were performed on April 1, 2002. Following those tests, Petitioner's physician ordered an MRI examination of the right breast, which was performed on April 26, 2002, and is the procedure at issue in this proceeding. Following that MRI, Petitioner had another mammography and ultrasound for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. Respondent has paid Petitioner's claims for coverage of the mammography and ultrasound examinations. Respondent has denied payment for the professional fee associated with the MRI in the amount of $215.00. Respondent has paid the facility fee associated with the MRI in the amount of $1,705.00. Respondent asserts that the payment of that fee was in error and intends to seek reimbursement for that payment if it prevails in this proceeding. The terms of coverage of the state group health insurance plan are set forth in a document entitled "State Employees' PPO Plan Group Health Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefit Document" (Benefit Document). The Benefit Document (at page 31, paragraph 47 of the section entitled "Services Not Covered By The Plan") specifically excludes the following from coverage: 47. Services and procedures considered by BCBSF to be experimental or investigational, or services and procedures not in accordance with generally accepted professional medical standards, including complications resulting from these non-covered services. The Benefit Document has a section entitled "Definitions of Selected Terms Used By The Plan" beginning at page 49. The definition of the phrase "experimental or investigational services", found at page 51, includes, in pertinent part, the following: . . . any evaluation, treatment, therapy, or device that: * * * is generally regarded by experts as requiring more study to determine maximum dosage, toxicity, safety or efficacy, or to determine the efficacy compared to standard treatment for the condition has not been proven safe and effective for treatment of the condition based on the most recently published medical literature of the U.S., Canada or Great Britain using generally accepted scientific, medical or public health methodologies or statistical practices is not accepted in consensus by practicing doctors as safe and effective for the condition is not regularly used by practicing doctors to treat patients with the same or a similar condition The Benefit Document provides at page 51 that BCBSF and the Division of State Group Insurance determine whether a service is experimental or investigational. The testimony of Dr. Wood established that an MRI of the breast is experimental or investigational within the meaning of the Benefit Document. 2/ MRI examinations of the breast are not reliable diagnostic tools because such examinations result in an unacceptable number of cases where an MRI produces false negative findings that reflect the absence of cancer where cancer is, in fact, present in the breast. According to Dr. Wood, an MRI cannot be relied upon and should not be used to avoid a biopsy of a suspicious mass because a patient would run an unacceptable risk that the detection of cancer may be delayed or missed. Dr. Wood also testified that radiologists in Florida performing services for the state group insurance health plan have been informed of BCBSF's position. Petitioner's doctors did not inform her prior to the examination that the MRI examination would not be covered by her insurance plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying coverage for the MRI claims submitted by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 2003.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner, Daniel O. Cobb, is entitled to payment of claims for surgery performed on Ms. Cobb, Susan Catherine Cobb, his spouse, on November 11, 1985, and whether Respondent, the State, is estopped from denying coverage. A prehearing stipulation was filed limiting the facts, issues, exhibits and witnesses. The stipulated facts were incorporated into the Recommended Order and are in the Final Order as well. Petitioner presented the testimony of himself and his spouse. Petitioner's exhibits 2 through 6 were accepted into evidence. Exhibits 3 and 4 constituted hearsay. The Department presented the testimony of Hazel Rosser and Joseph F. Wellman. Four exhibits by the Department were offered into evidence and were accepted. Neither party ordered a transcript. Only the Department filed a proposed recommended order and findings of fact. The Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order are hereby adopted, except in Findings of Fact Nos. 16, 17, and 18, Mrs. Scott is changed to Mrs. Cobb and in Findings of Fact No. 18, Mr. Scott is changed to Mr. Cobb.
Findings Of Fact Daniel O. Cobb was an employee of the Florida Department of Transportation during 1985. Mr. Cobb and his spouse, Susan Cobb, had family coverage under the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "State Plan"), until November 1, 1985. The State Plan is administered by Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Pursuant to the agreement between the State of Florida and Blue Cross/Blue Shield benefits which are payable under the State Plan are governed by a "Benefit Document." Each year, State employees are given an opportunity change the form of health insurance coverage they wish to have. During this "open enrollment period" an employee covered by the State Plan can elect to participate in a Health Maintenance Organization and an employee covered by a Health Maintenance Organization can elect to participate in the State Plan. During 1985, there was an open enrollment period between September 9, 1985, and September 20, 1985. During the 1985 open enrollment period State employees, including Mr. Cobb, were provided a Notice to Employees in which they were advised to carefully review information contained in a Benefit Comparison Brochure, a Rate Comparison Chart and a Health Care Plan Selection Form. These documents were provided to all State employees. The Selection Form instructed employees to "Please read the employee notice about HMO service areas and effective date of coverage before completing this section." State employees were also advised that any change in coverage would be effective November 1, 1985. On September 19, 1985, Mr. Cobb signed a State of Florida Employes Group Health Self Insurance Plan, Change of Information Form. Pursuant to this Change of Information Form, Mr. Cobb elected to terminate his health insurance coverage with the State Plan. On the Change of Information Form it was indicated that Mr. Cobb's election to terminate his coverage under the State Plan was to be effective November 1, 1985. Therefore, Mr. Cobb was informed and should have known that he was no longer eligible for medical cost payment for himself or his family pursuant to the State Plan after October 31, 1985. Mr. Cobb also signed a Member Enrollment (Group) and Physician Selection Form on September 19, 1985. Pursuant to this Form, Mr. Cobb enrolled himself, his Spouse and their children, in Health Options, Inc., a health maintenance organization. Mr. Cobb's participation in Health Options, Inc., began November 1, 1985. On September 19, 1985, Mr. Cobb was provided a list of Health Options, Inc., approved physicians which were available for use by Mr. Cobb and his family. Mr. Cobb designated Gerald A. Giurato, M.D., as his primary care physician on the Physician Enrollment Form which he signed on September 19, 1985. On October 28, 1985, Mr. Cobb was mailed a copy of the Health Options Member Handbook which, among other things, describes the grievance procedure to be followed when medical expenses were not paid by Health Options Inc., and the manner in which physicians were to be used in order to be entitled to payment, of their charges. The Handbook informed Mr. Cobb that all care had to be arranged through a primary care physician and that only services provided or approved by the primary care physician were covered. The Handbook also indicated that treatment by physicians who were not approved by the primary care physician would be the responsibility of the patient. During 1985 Mrs. Cobb was under the care of Alexander Rosin, M.D. Dr. Rosin performed surgery for the removal of a cyst on Mrs. Cobb, on November 11, 1985. Dr. Rosin was not a physician approved by Health Options, Inc., or Mr. Cobb's primary care physician. Nor was the surgery approved. Claims attributable to the November 11, 1985, surgery were submitted to the State Plan. Claims, for the charges of Dr. Rosin, Scott Blonder, M.D., and a Pathologist were submitted. The expenses for the November 11, 1985, surgery were incurred after coverage of Mr. and Mrs. Cobb under the State Plan ended. The type of surgery performed on Mrs. Cobb was also not authorized by the Benefit Document. No claims were submitted to Health Options, Inc., for medical expenses incurred for Mrs. Cobb's operation on November 11, 1985. None of the medical expense attributable to Mrs. Cobb's November 11, 1985, surgery were incurred with physicians or facilities approved by Health Options, Inc. By letter dated August 27, 1986, the Department denied the claims submitted to the State Plan attributable to Mrs. Cobb's November 11, 1985, surgery. Mr. Cobb filed a request for an administrative hearing to contest the Department's proposed denial.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMEDED that a final order be issued by the Department denying payment of claimed expenses attributable to Mrs. Cobb's surgery of November 11, 1985. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 864109 The Department has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number, of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 18. The letter denying payment was dated August 27, 1986, and not September 4, 1986. See DOA exhibit 1. 2 7. 3 Hereby accepted. 4 7. 5 3. 6 4 and 5. 7-9 6. 10-12 11. Summary of testimony and irrelevant. Summary of testimony argument. Concerning the weight to be given evidence and cumulative. 15 7. 16 Hearsay. 17-18 Conclusion of law. 19-20 16. 21 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 22 15. COPIES FURNISHED: O. C. Beakes, Esquire Lindner Smith, Jr., Esquire 836 Riverside Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Andrea R. Bateman, Esquire Department of Administration Room 438, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 =================================================================
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether the Department of Management Services properly denied medical insurance reimbursement to Marianne Fahle for EDTA chelation therapy services provided to her husband, John Fahle.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Marianne Fahle is a retired employee of the State of Florida. At all times pertinent to this case, Marianne Fahle was a participant in the State of Florida group health insurance plan. Her husband, John Fahle, is a covered dependent. The state group insurance program is a self-insured health insurance plan administered for the State of Florida for its employees by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida ("BCBSF"). In August 2000, John Fahle was hospitalized after he collapsed at his home. Medical tests revealed that Mr. Fahle suffered from arteriosclerosis with an estimated 60-80% stenosis, or blockage, of his carotid artery. Rather than undergo surgery to relieve the blockage, Mr. Fahle chose a course of treatment commonly called EDTA chelation therapy. Chelation therapy involves the intravenous injection of ethylene-diamine-tetra acetic acid (edetic acid or EDTA) accompanied by nutritional supplements. After undergoing chelation therapy, Mr. Fahle's diagnostic tests were repeated, with reported results indicating some reduction of the blockage in his coronary artery and a reduction of the carotid artery blockage to 40-60 percent. The actual tests, as opposed to the physicians' reports of their results, were not offered as evidence. The weight of the evidence established that the reported improvement in Mr. Fahle's carotid artery blockage, from a 60-80 percent blockage to a 40-60 percent blockage, could be attributed to the subjectivity involved in reading the results of the diagnostic tests. In any event, the reported improvement was of little medical significance. Chelation therapy is generally accepted in the medical community as a safe and efficacious treatment for heavy metal toxicity, e.g., lead poisoning. The United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved EDTA as a lawfully marketed drug in 1953. The FDA cannot limit the manner in which a licensed physician may prescribe an approved drug, though it can place limits on the marketing representations that may be made as to the efficaciousness of a drug for certain uses. The FDA has approved the marketing of EDTA as a treatment for heavy metal poisoning. The FDA prohibits any person from representing that chelation therapy is a safe and efficacious treatment for arteriosclerosis, though a physician may lawfully treat arteriosclerosis with chelation therapy. Petitioner submitted several articles attesting to the value of chelation therapy in treating arteriosclerosis. A significant minority of physicians in the United States employs chelation therapy as an option in the treatment of arteriosclerosis. However, reliable, formal clinical trials have yet to establish the efficacy of chelation therapy as a standard treatment for arteriosclerosis. The strength of the anecdotal evidence and the persistent advocacy of physicians have led the National Institute of Health to begin clinical trials on the use of chelation therapy in the treatment of arteriosclerosis, but the results of these trials will not be available for five years. In any event, Mr. Fahle's coverage is determined by the terms of Ms. Fahle's insurance policy. The terms of coverage for the state group health insurance plan are set forth in a document titled, "State Employees' PPO Plan Group Health Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefit Document." The benefit document states, in pertinent part: Services Not Covered By The Plan The following services and supplies are excluded from coverage under this health insurance plan unless a specific exception is noted. Exceptions may be subject to certain coverage limitations. * * * 47. Services and procedures considered by BCBSF to be experimental or investigational, or services and procedures not in accordance with generally accepted professional medical standards, including complications resulting from these non-covered services. The benefit document defines "experimental or investigational services" as follows: ny evaluation, treatment, therapy or device that: cannot be lawfully marketed without approval of the US Food and Drug Administration or the Florida Department of Health if approval for marketing has not been given at the time the service has been provided to the covered person is the subject of ongoing Phase I or II clinical investigation, or the experimental or research arm of Phase III clinical investigation-- or is under study to determine the maximum dosage, toxicity, safety or efficacy, or to determine the efficacy compared to standard treatment for the condition is generally regarded by experts as requiring more study to determine maximum dosage, toxicity, safety or efficacy, or to determine the efficacy compared to standard treatment for the condition has not been proven safe and effective for treatment of the condition based on the most recently published medical literature of the US, Canada or Great Britain using generally accepted scientific, medical or public health methodologies or statistical practices is not accepted in consensus by practicing doctors as safe and effective for the condition is not regularly used by practicing doctors to treat patients with the same or similar condition BCBSF and [the Department] determine whether a service or supply is experimental or investigational. The benefit document is not explicit as to whether the elements of the quoted definition are to be considered in the disjunctive, but the plain sense of the document leads to the reading that if any one of the definitional elements applies, then the service or supply must be considered experimental or investigational. Dr. William Wood, BCBSF's medical director, confirmed that if any single element of the definition applies to a service or supply, then it is considered experimental or investigational. Chelation therapy would fall under every element of the definition except, arguably, the last element dealing with regular use by practicing physicians. The FDA does not allow chelation therapy to be marketed as a treatment for arteriosclerosis, chelation therapy is currently the subject of clinical trials, and it is not accepted "in consensus" by practicing physicians as a treatment for arteriosclerosis.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Management Services enter a Final Order dismissing the petition of Marianne Fahle. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Marianne Fahle 12205 North Marjory Avenue Tampa, Florida 33612 Julia Forrester, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 John Matthews, Director Division of State Group Insurance Department of Management Services 4040 Esplanade Way, Suite 135 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Simone Marstiller, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
