The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Robbie Reynolds, is eligible for family medical insurance coverage for medical expenses incurred by the Petitioner's son?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Petitioner, Robbie W. Reynolds, was an employee of Department of Corrections, an agency of the State of Florida. The Respondent, the Department of Management Services, Division of State Employees' Insurance (hereinafter referred to as the "Division"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Division is responsible for managing the State's employee health insurance system. Participation in the State of Florida Health Insurance Plan. The State of Florida makes health insurance available to its employees (hereinafter referred to as the "State Health Plan"). Employees may choose health insurance through the State of Florida Employees' Group Health Self Insurance Plan or through various health maintenance organizations (hereinafter referred to as "HMOs"). The Division has promulgated Chapter 60P, Florida Administrative Code, regulating the State Health Plan. Employees pay part of the premiums for their health insurance and the State contributes a part of the cost of premiums. The amount of premiums paid by an employee and the State depends on the type of coverage selected. Employees may elect coverage only for themselves ("individual" coverage), or coverage for themselves and certain qualified dependents ("family" coverage). Female employees who elect individual coverage are eligible for the payment of maternity or pregnancy benefits. Included in these benefits are certain benefits for the newborn child referred to as "well-baby care." In order for medical expenses attributable solely to a newborn baby that is ill at or after birth to be covered by the State Health Plan, an employee must elect family coverage for the employee and the child. The family coverage must be effective as of the date the medical expenses are incurred for the child. Open Enrollment Periods. Once an employee selects the type of health insurance he or she desires, that employee generally may change the election only during certain designated periods of time, referred to as "open enrollment periods." During an open enrollment period, an employee may change from HMO coverage to the State of Florida Employees' Group Health Self Insurance Plan, or vice versa, may change from individual coverage to family coverage, or vice versa, and may add or delete dependents to the employee's family coverage. Changes to an employees' State Health Plan coverage made during an open enrollment period are effective for the calendar year immediately following the open enrollment period. Other Changes in Health Insurance Coverage. An exception to the requirement of the State Health Plan that changes in coverage only be made during an open enrollment period is provided for certain specified events, referred to as "qualifying events." The acquisition of an "eligible dependent" during a year may constitute a qualifying event. For example, if an employee marries, the employee may elect family coverage for himself or herself and the employee's spouse. A change from individual coverage to family coverage may also be made if an employee or an employee's spouse gives birth to a child. The change to family coverage as a result of marriage or the birth of a child must be made within thirty-one days after the eligible dependent is acquired. An employee may also elect family coverage as a result of the employee or the employee's spouse becoming pregnant. If the employee or employee's spouse elects family coverage in time for the family coverage to be effective at the time of the child's birth, the child may then be added as a dependent to the family coverage by notifying the Division of the child's birth within thirty-one days after the child is born. In order to change to family coverage when an employee or employee's spouse becomes pregnant, the employee, must apply for the change to family coverage in time for the employee to make a month's premium payment on the first day of at least the month during which the child is born or an earlier month. For example, if an employee elects to change from individual coverage to family coverage for a yet to be born child in July effective for September, the first full month's premium is paid on September 1, and the child is born on September 2, the employee has family coverage for all of September and the child will be covered if the Division is notified of the child's birth within thirty-one days after the date of birth. In order for an employee to make a change in coverage as the result of a qualifying event, the employee must file a Change of Information form with the employee's personnel office. The personnel office forwards the form to the Division. Ms. Reynolds' Health Insurance. Ms. Reynolds, as an employee of the State of Florida, was eligible for state health insurance. She elected to participate in the HMO that was available in the Gainesville area where she is employed. AvMed is the name of the HMO for the Gainesville area and Ms. Reynolds' insurer. Although married, Ms. Reynolds initially elected individual coverage. Ms. Reynolds did not elect family coverage for her husband because he received health insurance benefits from his employer. During 1992, Ms. Reynolds became pregnant. The baby's projected due date was April 15, 1993. The Open Enrollment Period for 1993. The open enrollment period for the next calendar year (1993) after Ms. Reynolds became pregnant took place in October of 1992. During the October 1992 open enrollment period the Department of Corrections, through its personnel office, conducted meetings with employees to discuss health care benefits and coverage available to its employees. Two benefits consultants, trained by the Division, conducted the meetings, providing information to, and answering questions from, employees concerning the open enrollment period. Ms. Reynolds, who was approximately three months pregnant at the time of the benefit consultation meetings, attended one of the sessions. Ms. Reynolds attended the session for the purpose of determining what steps she should take to insure that her yet-to-be-born infant was covered by health insurance. Ms. Reynolds spoke for some time with Gail Page and Jordaina Chambers, benefits consultants of the Department of Corrections. Ms. Reynolds informed the benefits consultants that she was pregnant and that she wanted to insure that her yet-to-be-born infant was covered by her health insurance. Ms. Reynolds was incorrectly told that she could not elect family coverage for just her and her yet-to-be-born infant. This incorrect advice, however, did not have any effect on the effective date Ms. Reynolds ultimately decided to begin her family coverage. Ms. Reynolds also informed the benefits consultants that the baby was due April 15, 1993. The benefits consultants informed Ms. Reynolds that her pregnancy constituted a qualifying event and that she could, therefore, switch to family coverage in order to cover her baby. She was also informed that she would have to notify the Division of her child's birth with thirty-one days after birth to add the child to the policy. After being told that she would have to switch her coverage from individual coverage to family coverage, adding her husband as a dependent, Ms. Reynolds asked the benefits consultants when she should switch to family coverage. Consistent with the policies of the Division, and the training the benefits consultants had received from the Division, the benefits consultants advised Ms. Reynolds that she should elect family coverage effective two or three months prior to her due date. The Division makes this recommendation so that employees can save the increased premiums for family coverage a reasonable period of time before the child is born. In light of the fact that Ms. Reynolds' conversation with the benefits consultants took place during the 1992 open enrollment period and the fact that January 1, 1993 was three and one-half months prior to Ms. Reynolds' due date, Ms. Reynolds was advised by the benefits consultants that it would be reasonable to switch from individual coverage to family coverage through the open enrollment period. Based upon this advice, Ms. Reynolds' family coverage would be effective January 1, 1993. The benefits consultants did not advise Ms. Reynolds of any possible consequences of not electing to switch from individual coverage to family coverage with an effective date prior to January 1, 1993. The benefits consultants also did not tell Ms. Reynolds that she could not choose to switch from her individual coverage to family coverage with an effective date prior to January 1, 1993. On or about October 15, 1992, Ms. Reynolds executed and filed with the Division an Annual Benefit Election Form. Respondent's exhibit 1. Pursuant to this form Ms. Reynolds elected to change her health insurance coverage from individual to family effective January 1, 1993. Ms. Reynolds elected to add her husband as a covered dependent. Based upon the election made by Ms. Reynolds, her family coverage became effective on January 1, 1993. If her child was born before that date, any expenses attributable solely to medical services received by the child would not covered by Ms. Reynolds' medical coverage. If the child was born on or after that date and Ms. Reynolds notified the Division of the child's birth within thirty-one days after the child's birth, any expenses attributable solely to medical services received by the child would be covered by Ms. Reynolds' medical coverage. The evidence failed to prove that the advice given by the benefits consultants in October 1992 was not reasonable based upon the information available to them and to Ms. Reynolds. The evidence also failed to prove that either the benefits consultants or Ms. Reynolds unreasonably failed to realize that the child would be born more than three and one-half months premature. Ms. Reynolds, while reasonably relying on the advice of the benefits consultants, knew or should have known that the ultimate decision as to when to begin family coverage was hers to make. Ms. Reynolds also should have been somewhat wary of the advice she was given, in light of the fact that Ms. Reynolds admitted that she was told by the benefits consultants that they "did not know that much about what she was asking." Despite this warning, Ms. Reynolds testified during the final hearing that she followed their advice because she felt there was "no reason to believe they would be wrong." The Premature Birth of the Reynolds' Child. On December 29, 1992, Ms. Reynolds underwent surgery, due to unforeseen medical complications, to deliver her child. The child died on January 1, 1993. In order to add the child as a dependent to her medical insurance when the child was born, Ms. Reynolds had to have family coverage in effect as of December 1, 1992 or earlier. Unfortunately for Ms. Reynolds, on December 29, 1992 when her child was born, Ms. Reynolds only had individual coverage. The rules governing medical benefits of state employees do not allow employees with individual coverage to add dependents. Therefore, even though Ms. Reynolds attempted to get the Division, through the personnel office of the Department of Corrections, to add her child by notifying the personnel office of the birth of the child immediately after December 29, 1993, the child could not be added to her individual coverage. The child received medical services and incurred medical expenses between December 29, 1992 and January 1, 1993. Those expenses were not covered by the well-baby care provided by Ms. Reynolds' individual coverage. Because Ms. Reynolds did not have family coverage at the time the child was born and the child could not be added to her individual coverage, the medical expenses incurred for the child were not covered by Ms. Reynolds' health insurance. Although the child should be added as a dependent to Ms. Reynolds family coverage which took effect as of January 1, 1993, the evidence failed to prove that any medical expenses incurred for the care of the child on January 1, 1993, were not attributable to a preexisting condition. Therefore, expenses incurred for the care of the child on January 1, 1993, are not eligible for reimbursement. Should the Division be Estopped from Denying Coverage? The Division relies on benefits consultants to assist the Division in administering the State Health Plan. Benefits consultants are trained by the Division, they are state employees and they hold themselves out as representing the State in general and the Division in particular. The Division's rules provide for the active involvement of the various personnel offices in administering the State Health Plan. See, Rule 60P- 2.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. The Annual Benefit Election Forms issued by the Division during the open enrollment specifically provide that the forms are to be turned in to employees' personnel offices. The Division allows personnel offices of the various state agencies to hold themselves out to employees as agents of the Division. In this case, Ms. Reynolds was given advice by benefits consultants, on behalf of the Division and consistent with Division policy, which played a role in Ms. Reynolds making a decision which resulted in medical expenses incurred upon the premature birth of her child not being covered by her medical insurance. While Ms. Reynolds was given some incorrect advice, she was not given incorrect advice concerning the effective date of her family coverage. The advice given to Ms. Reynolds concerning when to start her family coverage was reasonable at the time given and, as she admitted during the hearing, there was no reason in October of 1992 to doubt the wisdom of the advice she received. Ultimately, it was Ms. Reynolds decision. While she may not have understood that advice, she made the decision to make choices and act on the advice even after being warned that the benefits consultants were not knowledgeable about what she was asking.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Employees' Insurance enter a Final Order dismissing Robbie W. Reynolds' petition in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3731 The Division 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. Ms. Reynolds did not file a proposed recommended order. The Division's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 2-3 and 19. Accepted in 4-5, 9 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 6 and 9. Accepted in 11-17. Accepted in 7-8. Accepted in 1 and 18-19. Accepted in 23-26. Accepted in 20, 28 and 30-32. But See 27-20. See 29-30. But see 27. Accepted in 34 and 38. See 40. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 40-41 COPIES FURNISHED: Robbie W. Reynolds 2635 South West 35th Place, #1304 Gainesville, Florida 32608 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. Chief of Bureau of Benefits and Legal Services Division of State Employees' Insurance Department of Management Services 2002 Old St. Augustine Road, B-12 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-4876 William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Sylvan Strickland, Esquire Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 309 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Department of Insurance, was the state agency responsible for the licensure of insurance agents and the regulation of the insurance business in Florida. Respondent, Richard M. Rinker, was licensed by the Petitioner as a health insurance agent engaged in the business of soliciting, selling and servicing health insurance policies for National States Insurance Company. Levon H. and Joan D. Sprague, husband and wife, moved to Florida from New York in August, 1991. Prior to moving to Florida, the Spragues operated a restaurant in New York and purchased health insurance from Blue Cross/Blue Shield for themselves and some of their employees. They also owned a H.I.P. policy which was similar to a health maintenance organization, but both that coverage and the Blue Cross/Blue Shield coverage were dropped when they moved to Florida. Because both Mr. and Mrs. Sprague were getting older, and because both had indications of possible future health problems based on experience and family history, upon the recommendation of Mrs. Sprague's father, who had purchased coverage from Respondent and was satisfied with the service received, they contacted Respondent and met with him about purchasing health insurance. The first meeting was on January 6, 1992. At that time, the Sprague's made Respondent aware of the fact that they had no health insurance coverage at that time and that they wanted to purchase coverage which would give them 100 percent reimbursement of all bills for medical care rendered. After some discussion, they agreed to accept less coverage for doctors' bills and other professional services, but were quite adamant in reiterating they wanted a policy that would cover 100 percent of the cost of hospitalization. They emphasized this because of Mr. Sprague's family's history of heart problems and they wanted to be sure the hospital expense would be covered in full. They felt the doctors could wait a while for payment of the full amount of their bills. During the course of his presentation, Respondent utilized a document called a National States Limited Medical-Surgical Hospital Confinement Plan which purportedly outlined the specifics of policy coverage. Under that portion entitled "Specific Benefits", the form read, "This policy pays percent of usual and customary expenses of the following type:". Under the blank space, in smaller type, were the numbers "10, 20, 30, 40". In the blank area, Respondent, by hand, inserted 80 percent. Above, and to the right of that insertion, he also placed the numbers, "100 percent" and "40 percent." Respondent explains this as being his attempt to provide answers to questions asked of him by Mrs. Sprague. He noted that his company does not offer a major medical policy such as desired by the Spragues, and that the only way he could provide coverage close to that which they wanted was to combine policies. Using a yellow highlighter, he also highlighted the words, "Doctor's charges", "doctor's office", "clinic", "hospital", "home", and "surgical or medical center." He also highlighted the terms "annual mammography screening" because Mrs. Sprague had specifically inquired about coverage of that procedure. On that visit, Respondent sold the Spragues two policies each. These were "MSH-1" and "MSH-2" policies which, the Spragues recall, Respondent indicated would provide the total coverage they wanted. Initially, the premium was to be $3,600.00 for the year, but when the Spragues indicated they could not afford that much, after calling his office, Respondent was able to offer them 6 months coverage for one half the price. They were satisfied with this and accepted the policies. Mr. Rinker received as his commission 45 percent of the premium paid in by the Spragues for the first year of the policy. When he departed the Spragues' home, he left with them the policy outline he utilized in his presentation, a large manila envelope containing information regarding his office hours and phone number, and a MSP form required by law. The coverage was not heavily used at first. When, during the first six month period, claims were initially denied because of the waiting period, the Spragues accepted that. After the expiration of the waiting period, all claims submitted for doctors' visits and mammography were covered to at least 80 percent of the amount expected by the Spragues. This was, however, because of the combined benefits paid by the two policies. Neither policy, alone, paid 100 percent percent of the claim. The Spragues were satisfied with this because it was not hospitalization. Later on, however, it became apparent that Mr. Sprague would have to enter the hospital for coronary bypass surgery, and he was admitted on an emergency basis. Before the surgery was done, however, the Spragues wanted to be sure the hospital bills would be paid in full, and they had their daughter- in-law, who had extensive experience in the insurance business prior to that time, to examine the policies. Her review of the policies generated some questions in her mind as to whether they provided 100 percent coverage of all hospital costs. To satisfy herself and her in-laws, utilizing the telephone number for Respondent on the materials left by him with the Spragues, she contacted him and asked, specifically, whether the policies he had sold to the Spragues, provided the 100 percent coverage they desired. His answer was somewhat evasive and non- responsive to her inquiry. He said, "Don't worry. She'll [Ms. Sprague] be able to sleep at night. She has a good policy." This did not satisfy either Ms. Sprague or her mother-in-law, and so she called Respondent again. During this second conversation he admitted that for at least a part of the cost, there was a 40 percent coinsurance provision. Respondent claims that during these calls, Ms. Sprague did not tell him that her father-in-law was to have surgery but only told him about tests. The tests were covered and the bills therefor paid by National States. By the time of these calls, however, Mr. Sprague was already in the hospital and facing the surgery the following morning. There was little that could be done. Mr. Sprague wanted to cancel the surgery but his wife would not allow this and the operation was accomplished. The hospital bills received by the Spragues amounted to approximately $140,000. Of this, the insurance company paid approximately $18,000. Ultimately, the Spragues and the hospital were able to reach an agreement for settlement of the obligation for $40,000. In order to satisfy this, Mr. Sprague was required to liquidate all his investments. He still owes the doctors a substantial sum but is making periodic payments to liquidate those obligations. The policies which Respondent sold to the Spragues were limited medical and surgical expense policies which pay only a limited percentage of incurred medical expenses over a limited period of time. Neither policy pays 100 percent of any medical or surgical expense. Respondent did not clearly communicate this fact to the Spragues. They suffered from the misconception that the policies sold to them by the Respondent paid 100 percent coverage for hospital expense, 80 percent for doctor fees, and 40 percent for medication. Petitioner presented no evidence that what Respondent did was below the standards accepted of sales agents within the health insurance industry. On the other hand, James Quinn, an insurance agent since 1975, who has taught life and health insurance and the legal responsibility of agents in the health insurance area with the approval of the Department since 1985, testified on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Quinn noted that there are three types of medical policies in use, including basic medical expense, major medical, and comprehensive major medical. The first of these, basic medical expense, permits liberal underwriting and pays policy limits. In Mr. Quinn's opinion, based on the age and preexisting conditions that the Sprague's have, major medical coverage, like they wanted, would cost between seven and ten thousand dollars annually, excluding deductibles. Health insurance coverage outlines, such as used by Respondent in his presentation to the Spragues are, according to Mr. Quinn, reasonably self-explanatory and are left with the insured either when the policy is applied for or is delivered. In the former case, the client is able to read the outline and cancel the policy before delivery, if he so desires. In the latter case, the insured has a set number of days to read the policy after delivery and cancel if he so desires. These outlines do not substitute for the policy, however, and generally, the agent prefers to deliver the policy personally so he can go over it again with the insured. According to Mr. Quinn, it is difficult to explain coverage to prospective insureds because of their unfamiliarity with the terminology and the available benefits. He concluded that the action of the Respondent, in issue here, whereby he used the coverage outline to explain the coverages to the Spragues, was consistent with proper agent conduct and was within industry standards. He also concluded that based on what Respondent had available to sell to the Spragues, he sold them the best package he could, at the time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this matter finding Respondent, Richard Michael Rinker, guilty of a violation of Sections 626.611(5), (7), (9), and (13); 626.621(2) and (6); 626.9521, and 626.9541(1)(a)(1), (1)(e)(1), and (1)(k)(1), Florida statutes, and suspending his license as a health insurance agent for nine months. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 94-0089 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as to finding Mr. Quinn is an expert regarding insurance standards and business practices, but rejected as insinuating those opinions are binding on the Hearing Officer. Rejected notwithstanding the opinions of Mr. Quinn. Accepted, as there is no evidence to the contrary. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. First sentence rejected as contra to the evidence. Second sentence accepted as to the furnishing, but the quality of the information was less than clear. Balance accepted. & 8. Rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel T. Gross, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Thomas F. Woods, Esquire Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Cowdery 1709-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neill General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
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
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to the allegations of the First Amended Administrative Complaint, respondent Dennis Victor Daniels was licensed as an Ordinary Life including Disability Agent in Florida and was employed by Gulf Health/Life, Inc. in St. Petersburg, Florida. On or about January 14, 1980, Julie Stratton (then Julie Marzec) contacted respondent at the offices of Gulf Health/Life, Inc. for the purpose of purchasing health insurance. She and respondent discussed different insurance policies, and respondent informed her that if she joined the American Benevolent Society (ABS) she could obtain a lower rate for her policy and obtain the best policy for her money. Mrs. Stratton could not remember if respondent informed her of the exact amount of money she would save on her insurance if she joined the ABS. She was informed that other benefits and discounts from area businesses would be available to her as a member of the ABS. Mrs. Stratton joined the ABS in order to obtain less expensive insurance. She wrote two checks -- one in the amount of $15.00 payable to the ABS and the other in the amount of $54.26 payable to CNA Insurance Company. She obtained two insurance policies. The form numbers on these policies were 51831 and 52176. Based upon a referral from an agent with Allstate Insurance Company, John Valentine and his wife went to the offices of Gulf Health/Life in order to obtain hospitalization and surgical insurance coverage. Before moving to Florida, Mr. Valentine was covered by a group policy through his place of employment. Respondent informed Mr. Valentine that members of the ABS could obtain a policy at group rates which entailed a lesser premium than individual rates. Mr. Valentine wrote two checks -- one in the amount of $178.73 payable to CNA Insurance Company and the other in the amount of $25.00 payable to the ASS. Mr. Valentine received two policies from CNA -- one bearing form number 51831 and the other bearing form number 52176. He also received a brochure listing the places of business from which he could receive discounts as a member of the ABS. Gulf Health/Life, Inc. was a general agent for CNA. During the relevant time periods involved in this proceeding, CNA had different policies for health insurance. Policies with a form number of 51831 required the policyholder to be a member of an organization endorsing CNA in order to purchase that policy. Form 51831 policyholders paid a lesser premium for their policies. The difference in premiums between the group or organization policy and an individual policy with the same coverage is approximately $10.00. To obtain the policy bearing form number 52176, there is no requirement that the policyholder be a member of a group or an organization. Ms. Watkins, a secretary employed with Gulf Health/Life, Inc. between December of 1978 and June of 1979 observed a device known as a "light box" on the premises of Gulf Health/Life. This was a square-shaped plywood box with a slanted glass top and a high-intensity lightbulb within the box. On from a half-dozen to a dozen occasions on Fridays between January and April, 1979, Ms. Watkins observed respondent bent over the light box with a pen in his hand tracing a signature onto an insurance application. She could not produce any documents or recall any names of any insurance applicant whose signature was traced or copied by the respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the First Amended Administrative Complaint filed against the respondent on April 29, 1982, be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 10th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 10th day of September, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Curtis A. Billingsley, Esquire Franz Dorn, Esquire 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William A. Patterson, Esquire Masterson, Rogers, Patterson and Masterson, P. A. 447 Third Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Honorable Bill Gunter Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the Department of Administration, enter a final order denying coverage for the orthodontia recommended for Sandra Walsh. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 18th day of March, 1988.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was an Ordinary Life, including Disability Agent, and a Disability Agent licensed by the State of Florida. During this period, Respondent was licensed to sell life and health insurance policies for National States Insurance Company, American Guaranty Life Insurance Company, and Old Southern Life Insurance Company. Respondent was employed as an agent by Diversified Health Services, an insurance agency whose office is located in St. Petersburg, Florida. At no time material hereto was Respondent employed by any agency of the State of Florida. As indicated above, there remain viable in the Administrative Complaint ten counts charging Respondent with various violations of provisions of the Florida Insurance Code. For purposes of clarity, the findings of fact with regard to each of those remaining counts will be set forth separately. COUNT I On February 12, 1983, Respondent visited Lucille Shock at her home in Bradenton, Florida. Mrs. Shock had earlier purchased a Medicare supplement policy from National States Insurance Company through another agent, but had decided to cancel that policy. Respondent visited Mrs. Shock's home in response to her notice of cancellation in hopes of persuading her to reinstate coverage. In paragraph three of Count I of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent is charged with having told Mrs. Shock that he was ". . . authorized by the Florida Department of Insurance to investigate the Diversified Health Agency" when, in fact, he was not employed by any state agency. While it is true that Respondent was not at the time of his visit to Mrs. Shock employed by any state agency, the record in this cause is insufficient to establish the foregoing allegation of the Administrative Complaint. Respondent denies having made any c representation to Mrs. Shock that he was employed by the State of Florida. Further, Mrs. Shock's testimony in this regard is inconsistent and conflicting. In a February 21, 1983, letter to a representative of the Florida Department of Insurance, Mrs. Shock stated that at the time of his visit to her home the Respondent represented that he ". . . was an investigator for the Diversified Health Agency. . . . At final hearing, Mrs. Shock testified that Respondent told her that he was an investigator for the "insurance department," but also, on cross-examination, testified that Respondent told her that he was an investigator for Diversified Health. Despite these inconsistencies, it is clear from the record in this proceeding that before the end of Respondent's visit with Mrs. Shock on February 12, 1983, she knew that Respondent was an insurance agent for National States Insurance Company. Because of the inconsistencies in Mrs. Shock's testimony, it is specifically concluded that her testimony concerning Respondent's representation about his employment is unreliable. Other than Mrs. Shock's testimony, there is no other record basis to establish that Respondent represented himself to be an employee of the Department of Insurance as alleged in Count I. Respondent is also charged in paragraph five of Count I of the Administrative Complaint with having "falsely represented the financial condition of several insurance companies licensed to do business in Florida as part of your sales presentation to induce Mrs. Shock to buy insurance policies from you." The record in this cause establishes that Respondent and Mrs. Shock discussed several insurance companies, including Vulcan Insurance Company, Tara Life Insurance Company, and Bankers Life during their visit on February 12, 1983. Respondent reviewed with Mrs. Shock data contained in certain A. M. Best Company reports concerning these insurance companies.Respondent advised Mrs. Shock that Vulcan Insurance Company was "a rather shaky company" and that Tara Life Insurance Company had been experiencing "financial problems." There is, however, nothing of record in this proceeding to establish either that these companies are licensed in Florida or that the representations made by Respondent to Mrs. Shock concerning these insurance companies were false. Accordingly, the allegations contained in paragraph five of Count I have not been established. COUNT II On or about February 10, 1983, Respondent visited Koy B. Cook at his home in Port Orange, Florida. The purpose of Respondent's visit to Mr. Cook was to dissuade Mr. Cook from cancelling a policy with National States Insurance Company whichir. Cook had previously bought from another agent. After buying the National States policy initially, Mr. Cook had attempted to cancel a preexisting policy with Bankers Life Insurance Company, but had been advised by that company that the policy could not be cancelled. Mr. Cook determined that he could not afford duplicated coverage, so he contacted National States Insurance Company and advised them of his desire to cancel his National States policy. Be was advised, in writing, by National States, that his policy had been cancelled and that his premium had been returned to the insurance agency which had sold him the policy for refund. Sometime prior to January 12, 1983, Respondent contacted Mr. Cook by telephone, identified himself by name, and arranged an appointment to visit with Mr. Cook in his home. Mr. Cook understood from the conversation with Respondent that the purpose of their appointment was to return Mr. Cook's refund check from his cancelled National States policy. Immediately prior to Respondent's arrival at Mr. Cook's home, Mr. Cook had been asleep. When Respondent arrived at Mr. Cook's door, Mr. Cook was still in a "daze," having just awakened. This fact is of significance, because at various times in his testimony Mr. Cook testified that Respondent identified himself as . . . an adjuster with Bill Gunter out of Tallahassee, or . . . an adjuster for the insurance company out of Tallahassee." Mr. Cook also testified that Respondent showed him some identification which bore a photograph of Insurance Commissioner Bill Gunter. This photograph was apparently attached to a document, the contents of which were unknown to Mr. Cook. Respondent denies having represented that he was an employee of the Department of Insurance. During the course of their conversation, Mr. Cook advised Respondent that he preferred the coverage offered under the National States policy to that of the Bankers Life policy, but simply could not afford duplicate coverage. Respondent and Mr. Cook discussed the amount of unearned premium outstanding on the Bankers Life policy as compared to the cost of reinstating the National States policy. Mr. Cook had originally paid $630 for the issuance of the National States policy. Respondent returned to Mr. Cook a check in that amount during the course of their visit. Further, by offering to reinstate the National States policy for a $526 annual premium, Respondent demonstrated to Mr. Cook that he would save approximately the amount that remained in unearned premiums on the Bankers Life policy. Mr. Cook agreed to this proposal, Respondent completed an application form, and Mr. Cook gave Respondent a check for approximately $526 to reinstate the National States policy, with the understand- ing that the National States and Bankers Life policies would overlap for some period of time. Upon leaving Mr. Cook's house, Respondent gave Mr. Cook one of his business cards, which identi- fied Respondent as an agent of National States Insurance Company. In Count II of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent is charged with having told Mr. Cook that he was an "insurance adjuster working out of Tallahassee" and that he "worked for the Florida Department of Insurance. Respondent is further charged with having told Mr. Cook that he "had a refund check for a cancelled Bankers Life policy when in fact the] had no such check." The testimony of Mr. Cook and Respondent on the issues alleged in Count II are diametrically oooosed. Viewing the transaction between Mr. Cook and Respondent in its totality, it is concluded that Respondent's version of the transaction is the more credible. Mr. Cook's testimony concerning Respondent's representations about his employment status contained several contradictions and inconsistencies. In addition, it is clear that Mr. Cook expected to receive a refund check from National States Insurance Comoany, that Mr. Palesky contacted him by telephone prior to his February 10 visit to advise him that he had his refund check, and that Respondent conducted himself during the entire transaction in a manner which clearly identified him as an insurance salesman. Finally, Respondent furnished Mr. Cook with a business card during the course of their meeting which clearly showed Respondent to be an agent of National States Insurance Company. It is also clear that Mr. Cook was aware during this entire transaction that his Bankers Life policy had not been cancelled, and that as a result of his transaction with Respondent he would be carrying policies with National States and Bankers Life which afforded duclicate coverage, and that he was advised of this fact by Respondent. These facts are clearly inconsistent with Mr. Cook's testimony that Respondent advised him that he had a refund for a cancelled Bankers Life policy in his possession. COUNT IV On or about March 2, 1982, Respondent visited Marjorie Brubaker in her home in Bradenton, Florida. The purpose of Respondent's visit to Mrs. Brubaker was to dissuade her from cancelling an insurance policy with National States Insurance Company which she had previously purchased through another agent and had subsequently cancelled. Mrs. Brubaker testified that, upon arrival at her home, Respondent represented to her that he was an "investigator for the state" or a "state investigator," looking into her cancellation of her policy with National States Insurance Company. Respondent denies having made that representation. The record is clear, however, that shortly after entering Mrs. Brubaker's home, Respondent showed Mrs. Brubaker materials which clearly identified him as an agent of National States Insurance Company, and that Mrs. Brubaker clearly understood within minutes after his entering her home that he was, in fact, a salesman for National States Insurance Company. Under these circumstances, it is specifically found that Respondent's testimony concerning his employment status is more credible. If, as is clear from the record, Respondent intended to sell insurance to Mrs. Brubaker, there is little logic to his having represented himself as a state employee at the door to her home, and within minutes clearly divulging to her that that was indeed not the case. Petitioner also alleges in the Administrative Complaint that Respondent displayed a photograph of Insurance Commissioner Bill Gunter to Mrs. Brubaker to establish his position as an investigator for the state. Mrs. Brubaker, however, was unable to identify the person in the photograph displayed to her by Respondent, other than to assert that the person in the photograph was not the Respondent, but instead a clean-shaven person with light hair and fair, reddish complexion. Those facts, standing alone, are insufficient to establish that the person in the photograph was, in fact, Mr. Gunter. Respondent is alleged in paragraph twenty of Count IV of the Administrative Complaint of having ". . . . falsely represented the status of Medicare coverage in this state in order to induce Mrs. Brubaker to purchase' new insurance policies from you." The only evidence in the record on this issue is Mrs. Brubaker's testimony that Respondent told her that Blue Cross-Blue Shield would soon cease to be the Medicare carrier in Florida, and that there existed a substantial possibility that National States Insurance Company would be designated as the new Medicare carrier in Florida. The record in this cause is absolutely devoid of any evidence that that representation, even if it had been made, was false. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to establish facts to support the allegations that Respondent has falsely represented the status of Medicare coverage in Florida. Finally, paragraph twenty-one of Count IV of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent falsely told Mrs. Brubaker that her present insurer, Orange State Life Insurance Company, was cancelling its Medicare Supplement policies. . . . It is undisputed that Mrs. Brubaker, at the time she was visited by Respondent, had insurance coverage through Orange State Life Insurance Company. Mrs. Brubaker, it is clear from the record, was under the impression that her policy with Orange State Life Insurance Company was a Medicare supplement policy. Respondent testified that her policy was not a Medicare supplement policy, and, in fact, bore a statement across the top of the policy to the effect that the policy was not a Medicare supplement policy. Petitioner offered no evidence to rebut Respondent's testimony in this regard, and neither party sought to introduce the policy into evidence. The only evidence offered by Petitioner to support the allegation that Respondent's representation that Orange State Life Insurance Company was cancelling its Medicare supplement policv was the fact that Mrs. Brubaker had continued to pay premiums on her policy after the representation was made by Respondent without receiving notice of any cancellation. However, any inference that might be drawn from continued payment of premiums fails if, in fact, the policy held by Mrs. Brubaker was not a Medicare supplement policy. Neither party having offered competent evidence to establish that Mrs. Brubaker's Orange State Life Insurance Company policy was in fact a Medicare supplement policy, the allegations contained in paragraph twenty-one of Count IV of the Administrative Complaint are deemed to be without factual support. COUNT VI In Count VI f the Administrative Complaint, it is alleged that Respondent visited the home of Leila Mueller on October 18, 1979. It is further alleged that at that time Respondent told Mrs. Mueller that he was ". . . from Medicare and that [Respondent] had called at one of [Mrs. Mueller's] neighbor's homes to explain the changes in Medicare coverage." It is further alleged that Respondent ". . . misrepresented [his] actual employment in order to induce Mrs. Mueller to buy insurance policies. The record in this cause establishes that on or about October 18, 1979, Mrs. Mueller was visited in her home by two insurance salesmen whom she believed to be in some way affiliated with Medicare. Mrs. Mueller did not recall the names of either of the two men, was not asked to physically identify the Respondent, and could not recall which of the two men led her to believe that they were affiliated with "Medicare." Mrs. Mueller inquired about whether there existed any written material that she could review to decide whether to purchase insurance coverage. One of the men furnished her a brochure which had the name "Palesky" on it. There is no evidence of record in this proceeding to establish that Respondent was ever in the home of Mrs. Mueller or that he in any fashion ever represented to her or to anyone else that he was a representative of Medicare. The only testi- mony in this record that in any way connects Respondent with Mrs. Mueller was her testimony that she was given a brochure, which was not introduced into evidence, containing Respondent's name. This fact, standing alone, is insufficient to establish the factual allegations contained in Count VI of the Adminis- trative Complaint. COUNT XI On or about March 21, 1982, Respondent visited William F. and Winifred M. Bell in their home in Sarasota, Florida. The purpose of Respondent's visit to the Bells was to sell them a Medicare supplement policy. The Bells had previously purchased a policy from Union Fidelity Insurance Company. During the course of Respondent's visit with the Bells, Respondent advised them that Union Fidelity was "not a good company" and that the policy they had with Union Fidelity was "not a good policy." In addition, Respondent advised the Bells that if anything happened to Mr. Bell that Mrs. Bell would not be insured within two months after Mr. Bell's death. Paragraph fifty-five of Count XI of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent told the Bells ". . . that their present insurance coverage was no good" and that if Mr. Bell died, Mrs. Bell would not be insured when in fact [Respondent] knew that both of those statements were false." The record in this cause contains no evidence that the representations set forth above made by Respondent to the Bells were false. The Bells' insurance policy was not received into evidence because Petitioner failed to respond fully to Respondent's Request for Production of Documents, and had further failed to fully exchange exhibits with Respondent, including a copy of the Bells' policy, as required by the Pre-hearing Order entered by the Hearing Officer approximately two months prior to the date set for final hearing in this cause. Accordingly, there are no facts to substantiate the allegations contained in Count XI of the Administrative Complaint. COUNT XII On or about February 4, 1983, Respondent visited Louise S. Donovan at her home in Daytona Beach, Florida. Respondent visited Mrs. Donovan in response to her cancellation of a previous policy purchased from National States Insurance Company from another agent on or about November 17, 1982. Soon thereafter, she cancelled that policy but on December 22, 1982, reinstated the policy after having available coverages explained to her by the other agent. Sometime thereafter she again can- called the National States policy. By letter dated January 17, 1983, from the home office of National States Insurance Company, Mrs. Donovan was advised that her refund-check had been returned to her agency for refund to her. On February 4, 1983, Respondent visited Mrs. Donovan in her home. Under direct examination, Mrs. Donovan testified as follows concerning that visit: Q So, you showed [the January 27, 1983] letter to Mr. Palesky; and, how did he respond to the letter? A He said sort of -- it's a little vague now after all these months -- that, oh, well, they didn't pay any attention to those things, or some- thing like that, and that the company would not refund any money on the policy. Q Be made the statement to you that the company was not going to refund? A The company would not -- now, I believe his interpretation of that, but it wasn t clear to me, was that there was a certain clause in that policy that I was not satisfied with and that he would not reissue the same policy under the same conditions. Well, I'm a lay person. I don't know all these fine points. And, I under- stood that he meant that the company would not refund any money to me at all... During the course of their discussions, Mrs. Donovan advised Respondent that she had cancel led the policy because she did not have nursing home coverage. Respondent explained to her that, under those circumstances she would have to either add nursing home coverage to the policy she had cancelled, which he was not sure that he could do for her because the so-called "RS 100 feature" was in the process of being discontinued, or she could take out a separate nursing home policy. Resnondent advised her that in order to keep the RS 100 feature she would have to reinstate the policy which she had cancelled, and take out a separate nursing home policy at a later date. This is the option which Respondent recommended to Mrs. Donovan, and the option that she ultimately chose. Accordingly, Mrs. Donovan opted to fill out an application reinstating the cancelled policy. She had originally paid $659 for the policy she took out on December 22, 982, but premium rates had increased since that time. The application filled out by Mrs. Donovan on February 4, 1983, reflects the premium rate increased to $691. Mrs. Donovan testified that she did not recall endorsing a refund check in the amount of $659 from National States Insurance Company and allowing Respondent to submit the endorsed check to National States along with the application dated February 4, 1983. Respondent testified that she did, in fact, endorse that check, which he forwarded to National States Insurance Company with the February 4, 1983, application. According to Respondent's testimony, which is uncontradicted, he submitted the $659 check to National States, notwithstanding the fact that the premium rate had increased to $691, with the understanding that the company had the option of either reinstating the policy for $659 or insisting upon the increased premium rate. Thereafter, Mrs. Donovan again decided to cancel the coverage she received as a result of the February 4, 1983, application submitted through Respondent. Mrs. Donovan signed a sworn statement on March 30, 1983, which provided, in part, as follows: Mr. Palesky has shown me the com- plaint filed against him by the Department of Insurance. I totally disagree with the accusa- tions in the complaint. My only problem with Mr. Pale sky was a misunderstanding concerning the fact that the RS 100 rider could not be refunded and reissued (as it was being discontinued) [sic] I thought he meant the entire policy could not be refunded. . . . Count XII of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent ". . . refused to return [premium] money to Mrs. Donovan. . ., and that ". . . as a result of your refusal Mrs. Donovan felt pressured into applying for a new policy at a higher premium." Further, Count XII alleges that ". . . the new policy was written for a higher premium, that [Resoondent] signed a receipt acknowledging receipt of the higher premium, and that Mrs. Donovan gave [Respondent] no money during [the] visit [of] February 4, 1983." The evidence in this cause does not establish that Respondent refused to return premium money to Mrs. Donovan, nor does the evidence establish that Mrs. Donovan was pressured into applying for a new policy at a higher premium. Finally, the evidence in this cause establishes that Respondent attempted to have National States Insurance Company reinstate Mrs. Donovan's coverage at the premium originally paid in December of 1982, notwithstanding a premium increase that had occurred in the interim, a procedure which has not been shown by the record in this cause to be in any way improper. COUNT XV On or about January 24, 1983, Kenneth E. Fritz bought a National States Insurance Company policy from an agent other than Respondent. On or about February 12, 1983, Mr. Fritz cancelled that policy and asked for a full refund. Mr. Fritz subsequently received a letter dated March 11, 1983, from National States Insurance Company acknowledging his request for cancellation, and advising him that a full refund of his premium was being sent to the agency office which had sold the policy to him, with instructions to deliver the refund to him. On or about March 24, 1983, Respondent visited Mr. Fritz in his home in Largo, Florida, with Mr. Fritz' refund check. In paragraph eighty-eight of Count XV of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent is charged with having ". told Mr. Fritz that [Respondent was] an `investigator with Florida' and that [Respondent] pointed to an emblem on [Respondent's] jacket which gave [Mr. Fritz] the idea [Respondent was] employed by the State of Florida' when in fact [Respondent was] not and are not employed by the Florida Deoartment of Insurance in any capacity." It is further alleged that Resoondent made this representation to influence Mr. Fritz to buy insurance policies, and that Mr. Fritz did not realize that Respondent was not a government employee until reading a newspaper article on or about April 2, 1983, concerning the emergency suspension of Respondent's licensed. Respondent denies ever having represented to Mr. Fritz that he was an employee of the State of Florida. Indeed, Mr. Fritz testified on this issue only that: Mr. Palesky came here, and he had a thing on his coat, and he says[sic] you bought some policies from the -- and he mentioned the name of the company in St. Louis, and he says[sic] I'm here to check on that, and he rattles this thing and give [sic] me the impression that he was the--was from the State of Florida checking this. . . . As mentioned above, Respondent is charged with representing to Mr. Fritz that Respondent was an "investigator with Florida." Nothing contained in the record in this cause establishes that Respondent ever made such a representation to Mr. Fritz. Indeed, Mr. Fritz clearly testified that he could not remember exactly what Respondent said to him to give him the "impression" that he was an employee of the State of Florida. It is, however, clear from the record in this cause that the allegation of the Administrative Complaint that Mr. Fritz did not know that Respondent was not a state employee until reading of Respondent's emergency suspension in a newspaper article on or about April 2, 1983, is false. What is clear is that Respondent made a sales presentation to Mr. Fritz which resulted not only in Mr. Fritz' reinstating the policy he had earlier purchased from another agent and cancelled, but in fact buying another policy from Respondent at the same time. It is also clear that Respondent gave Mr. Fritz a business card during the course of their conversation which clearly identified Respondent as a salesman for National States Insurance Company. In short, this record does not establish that Respondent ever represented himself as an employee of the State of Florida during the course of his sales presentation to Mr. Fritz, nor did Mr. Fritz reinstate his cancelled policy and purchase a second policy based upon any such representation. COUNT XVII On April 15, 1981, Esther Huddleson purchased two Medicare supplement policies issued by National States Insurance Company from agent Michael Frye. On April 16, 1901, she requested a refund on the National States policies. On June 1, 1981, she was visited in her home by Respondent. Count XVII alleges that Respondent falsely advised Mrs. Huddleson that he was an "insurance investigator" and an "investigator for the State." It is also alleged that Respondent was not an "investigator" for National States Insurance Company and that his status with the company had always been that of a sales representative. Further, it is alleged that Respondent ". . . falsely told Mrs. Huddleson her statutory `free look' had expired and so persuaded her to sign a conservation notice." It is clear from the record in this proceeding that Respondent never advised Mrs. Huddleson that he was an "investigator for the State" or in any other manner employed by the State of Florida or the Department of Insurance. A sworn statement signed by Mrs. Huddleson upon which she was closely interrogated by counsel and the Bearing Officer during the course of this proceeding clearly reflects that Respondent identified himself either as "an investigator from National States Insurance Company" or "States Insurance Company." Fur ther, there is no evidence in the record in this cause from which it can be concluded that this representation by Respondent was in any way false. Finally, the only testimony in the record in this cause concerning Mrs. Huddleson's statutory "free look" period occurred on the direct examination of Mrs. Buddleson as follows: Q Did [Respondent] lead you to believe that your 30-day period had passed? A yes. At least, that was in my mind. Mrs. Buddleson's testimony in this regard is, at best, equivocal, and does not persuasively establish that Respondent did, in fact, advise her that her "free look" period had expired as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. There is, accordingly, insufficient evidence of record in this proceeding to establish the allegations against Respondent contained in Count XVII of the Administrative Complaint. The Bearing Officer feels constrained, further, to note with concern the failure of Petitioner's counsel to deal with both Mrs. Huddleson's sworn statement and direct testimony concerning the fact that Respondent never represented himself to her to be an employee of the State of Florida. In fact, to say that Petitioner's counsel failed to deal with those issues is most charitable. It would perhaps be more accurate to say that the proposed findings submitted by Petitioner's counsel on this particular issue have absolutely no factual basis in this record, despite citations to a portion of the transcript purportedly supporting the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. COUNT XXI In December of 1982 Mary Ellen Stapleton purchased a Medicare supplement policy from an agent, other than Respon- dent, representing National States Insurance Company. After reviewing the policy and deciding that she did not want to retain it, Mrs. Stapleton returned the policy on or about February 8, 1983, to National States Insurance Company, and requested a refund of her premium. Through a series of correspondence with National States Insurance Company, Mrs. Stapleton's cancellation request was acknowledged, and she was advised that her premium refund had been returned to the office of the agency selling the policy, with instructions to make immediate delivery to her. On or about March 8, 1983, Respondent telephoned Mrs. Stapleton at her home and advised her that he was an investigator for National States Insurance Company and that he was investigating a Mr. Buffer, who had sold Mrs. Stapleton her National States policy. Count XXI, in pertinent part, alleges: That on or about March 8, 1983, you, JOSEPH MICHAEL PALESKY, telephoned Mrs. Stapleton at her home in Lakeland, Florida, and told her you were "an investigator for National States and [that you were] investi- gating Mr. Buffer" when in fact you were not and are not an investigator for National States Insurance Company but were and are only a salesman. That at no time did you tell Mrs. Stapleton that you represented Diversified Health Services of St. Petersburg, Florida. That you, JOSEPH MICHAEL PALESKY, created the false impression of your employ- ment status in order to induce Mrs. Stapleton to keep the [cancelled] policy. . Respondent did not tell Mrs. Stapleton that he represented Diversified Health Services of St. Petersburg, Florida. It is undisputed that Respondent was, on March 8, 1983, a salesman for National States Insurance Company. Petitioner has not established by any evidence whatsoever that Respondent was not an investigator for National States Insurance Company with authority to investigate Mr. Buffer. Neither has it been shown in this record that Respondent was under any obligation to identify the insurance agency by whom he was employed after having first clearly identified himself as being affiliated with National States Insurance Company. It is, therefore, specifically concluded that there are no facts of record to establish the violations alleged in Count XXI of the Administrative Complaint. COUNT XXII On September 24, 1980, Respondent visited John Capers Smith and Lillian H. Smith in their home in Bradenton, Florida. Respondent went to the Smiths' home in response to the Smiths having sent a card to National States Insurance Company requesting information concerning Medicare supplement policies. Upon his arrival at the Smiths' home, Respondent was advised by Mrs. Smith initially that she did not wish to speak with him further on that day because her husband had recently undergone surgery and was still recuperating. However, uoon Respondent's insistence, he was admitted to the Smiths' home at approximately 1:00 p.m. Respondent remained in the Smiths' home until approximately 8:00 p.m. on September 24, 1980. When he first arrived in the Smiths' home, Respondent told the Smiths that he worked for the State of Florida and that Bill Gunter was his boss. In the course of discussing National States Insurance Company policies, Respondent advised the Smiths that this type of policy was something that Mr. Gunter was attempting to do to assist elderly Floridians. During the course of his conversation with the Smiths, Respondent displayed a photograph of Mr. Gunter to the Smiths as proof of his affiliation with the State of Florida, and offered to call Mr. Gunter on the telephone to verify his credentials. After a long period of discussion, the Smiths purchased an insurance policy from Respondent, and gave him a check for $694. The Smiths' purchase of the policy was due in large part to Respondent's representation that he was an employee of the State of Florida, and that Mr. Gunter approved of the policy. Respondent denies having made any representation to the Smiths concerning his employment by the State of Florida, but, under the circumstances here present, it is specifically concluded that the Smiths' versions of the transaction occurring on September 24, 1980, are more credible.
The Issue The issues concern the question of Petitioner's responsibility to pay additional insurance premiums related to Family I coverage in the State Employees' Group Health Insurance program for the period February 1981 through April 1982, based upon alleged underpayments of required premiums. See Section 110.123, Florida Statutes and Rule 22K-1.20, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact According to the Florida law which has application in this dispute, when a husband and wife were employed by separate agencies of the State of Florida, cost of the Family I coverage under the State Group Health Insurance Plan was defrayed by those state agencies. This is as contrasted with the circumstance in which one spouse would be responsible for contributing to the cost of the Family I coverage under the State Group Health Insurance Plan, should the second spouse cease to be employed by the second state agency. The State of Florida, Department of Administration, has she responsibility for administering the State Group Health Insurance Plan, to include collection of necessary premium payments. Both Petitioner and his wife had been reported in the records of the Department of Administration as employed by the Department of Corrections and Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services respectively, as employees entitled to participate in the spouse program for payment of health care, i.e., the program in which no contribution is made by the employees toward payment of health insurance premiums. On October 28, 1982, the Petitioner informed the Department of Administration on a form provided by the Bureau of Insurance of the Department of Administration that his wife, Caroline Wilson, had terminated her employment with Health and Rehabilitative Services effective March 23, 1982. This form was executed in cooperation with the Petitioner's employing agency. The second part of the form related to information to be provided by the wife and her employing agency on the question of her employment was not completed by the spouse nor signed off by her employing agency. A copy of this item or form may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence. As a result of information he provided, Petitioner was informed of an underpayment of premiums for the period May 1982 through November 1982, related to his wife's lack of eligibility for contribution from her employing agency and the responsibility of the Petitioner to substitute as payor of those premiums. This referred to the point of departure identified by the Petitioner allowing for a grace month of April 1982, thereby making the period of underpayment May 1982 through November 1982. The amount of nonpayment was $280.06, which was eventually reimbursed by the Petitioner. Subsequently, in January 1984, Respondent, Bureau of Insurance, in an attempt to ascertain why Health and Rehabilitative Services had not contributed the full amount of its share to the insurance related to Caroline P. Wilson in times before March 23, 1982, discovered that the wife, Caroline P. Wilson, had terminated her employment some time before March 23, 1982. As was revealed in the final hearing, the last day of employment with Health and Rehabilitative Services was January 3, 1981. After that date, Mrs. Wilson did not return to her job at the Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida, and was eventually considered to have abandoned that job. (It was the first impression of the Department of Administration that she had last been employed in December 1980 and as a consequence this case pertains to the claim of the Department of Administration that there is an underpayment related to the family coverage which starts on February 1, 1981 and runs until April 1, 1982, allowing for a credit of overpayment in the amount of $48.46 for the month of September 1983, leaving a total claimed of $382.64. It is this amount that Petitioner took issue with and requested a timely formal Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes' hearing to resolve.) Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, the date from which the responsibility of the husband to contribute the premiums share no longer being provided by Health and Rehabilitative Services would be January 1981, as opposed to December 1980. Allowing for the grace month of February 1981, the payments would be due for March 1, 1981, through April 1, 1982, allowing credit again for the $48.46 for the month of September 1983, leaving a total due and owing in the way of underpayment of $353.90.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent properly rejected Petitioner's insurance Policy Form No. SL-94.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner submitted Policy Form No. SL-94 (hereinafter referred to as "the Policy") to Respondent for approval as a stop loss policy pursuant to Section 627.410, Florida Statutes, on or about August 15, 1995. The Policy, standing alone, meets all applicable requirements for approval as a stop loss policy under Section 627.410, Florida Statutes. The Policy obligates Petitioner to pay benefits to an employer, or the trust established by or for the employer, which employer is responsible for the payment of benefits to its employees or their dependents under a self-funded employee welfare benefit plan (hereinafter referred to as "the Plan") qualified under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA). The Policy purports to provide insurance only to the employer. On its face, the Policy does not assume any of the employer's obligations under the Plan to provide insurance directly to the employer's employees. Under the Policy, Petitioner is obligated to reimburse the employer only after the employer pays a limited amount of benefits under the Plan to any person who is covered under the Plan, i.e. employees or their dependents. The amount of Plan benefits that an employer must pay before Petitioner is obligated to begin reimbursement is determined by specific and aggregate attachment points or deductibles as defined in the Policy's Schedule of Insurance. The specific attachment point is the Plan benefit amount which is wholly retained by the employer for all claims incurred by each covered person during each contract year. The Plan benefit amount does not include deductibles, coinsurance amounts or any other expense or claims which are not reimbursable under the terms of the Plan nor does it include expenses which are reimbursable from any other source. The aggregate attachment point or deductible is the Plan benefit amount which is wholly retained by the employer for all covered persons during a contract year. The Policy's Schedule of Insurance does not specify what the specific and aggregate attachment points will be. However, record evidence indicates that Petitioner intends to market the policy with a specific attachment point as low as $500. Therefore, if the Plan has a deductible of $250 and the Policy has a specific attachment point of $500, the employee would pay the first $250 of eligible expenses, the employer would pay the next $500 of eligible expenses, and Petitioner would reimburse the employer for 100 percent of any excess eligible expenses, for each covered person during a contract year. The Policy's eligible expenses are the covered charges or expenses which are incurred by a covered person while covered under the Plan in the course of treatment for an injury or illness and paid under the Plan subject to the terms, conditions and limitations of the Plan document. In other words, the eligible expenses under the Policy will mirror the eligible expenses of the Plan. Record evidence indicates that Petitioner intends to market the Policy to employers with less than fifty (50) employees. The Policy does not contain provisions related to the following protections: guaranteed availability for any small group employer regardless of whether its employees are sick or have preexisting conditions; guaranteed renewability unless the policyholder fails to pay the premium or commits fraud; limitations on exclusions for pre- existing conditions; portability which allows employees to move from one employer to another regard- less of preexisting conditions; community rated premiums; and, periods of open enrollment. ERISA self-funded benefit plans are not regulated by the state regardless of their terms and conditions. They are not required to include the above referenced protections. If the Plan excludes specific health risks or preexisting conditions such as AIDS, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, neither the employer nor the Petitioner would be obligated to pay benefits for those risks. Additionally, the Plan is subject to whatever deductible limits the small employer wishes to set. Respondent disapproved the Policy by letter dated August 21, 1995. Respondent correctly rejected the Policy as being inappropriate for the small group health insurance market. The Policy is inappropriate because Petitioner intends to market it to self-insured small group employers with attachment points so low ($500) that it becomes a de facto health insurance policy instead of a stop loss policy. Respondent would not approve a stop loss policy for a small group employer's Plan with specific attachment points at $5,000 or less. Respondent would approve a stop loss policy for a small group employer's Plan with specific attachment points as low as $9,000 or $10,000, regardless of the terms and conditions of that Plan. In that instance, the employer assumes significant risk of loss as a self-funded insurer and the stop loss policy operates to limit that loss. However, an ERISA benefit plan combined with a stop loss policy having specific attachment points as low as $500, such as the one at issue here, substantially limits the self-insured employer's risk of loss to a nominal amount and substitutes Petitioner as a small group health insurer with none of the protections required by Section 627.6699, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order disapproving Petitioner's Policy Form No. SL-94, for use in Florida's small group health insurance market. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of March, 1996. SUZANNE F. HOOD, Hearing Officer Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1996. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in substance as restated in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted in substance as restated in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted in substance as restated in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-7. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 4. Not a finding of fact. More like a conclusion of law. Reject the first sentence as contrary to more persuasive evidence. Second sentence accepted as restated in Conclusions of Law 19-21 and 26-27. Rejected. It is a question of fact whether the Policy is a stop loss policy or a health insurance policy regardless of its denomination. Specifically reject Petitioner's finding that the Policy does not violate public policy as expressed in Section 627.6699, Florida Statutes. See Conclusions of Law 24-27. Accepted in Conclusion of Law 23. Accepted in part as restated in Findings of Fact 15-16. See also Conclusions of Law 22, 24-27. Not a finding of fact. More like a conclusion of law and legal argument which is not persuasive as applied to the facts of this case. Not a finding of fact. More like a conclusion of law. Not a finding of fact. More like a conclusion of law. First sentence rejected as contrary to more persuasive evidence. Next five sentences are not findings of fact. Specifically reject any implication that the Policy is a stop loss policy. See Findings of Fact 15-16 and Conclusions of Law 24-27. First two sentences are not findings of fact. Reject any implication that there is no public policy "relating to the issuance of a stop loss policy in the State of Florida to a Florida employer employing 50 or fewer employees." Accept that the state does not regulate employer self-funded medical benefit programs. See Finding of Fact 12. Accept the last sentence as restated in Finding of Fact 15 and Conclusion of Law 24. Rejected. Petitioner's Exhibit 3 shows the legislature was aware that "the bill could increase the likelihood that an employer would choose to self- insure and due to ERISA would be able to avoid state regulation of the insurance product provided to employees." However, the referenced exhibit is rejected as evidence of legislative intent to exclude "related insurance products" from "the statute's regulatory or public policy purview." Rejected for the reasons set forth in the ruling above. Rejected. See Conclusions of Law 24. Substance accepted as restated in Findings of Facts 12 and Conclusions of Law 24. Substance accepted as restated in Findings of Facts 16. First sentence not a finding of fact. Second sentence rejected as contrary to more persuasive evidence; See Findings of Fact 15-16 and Conclusions of Law 24-27. Accept in part as restated in Findings of Fact 15-16 and Conclusions of Law 24-27. A recitation of the testimony is not a finding of fact; substance accepted as restated in Finding of Fact 16. Accept that the state has no specific statutes or rules regulating attachment points in stop loss insurance policies. See Conclusions of Law 19. However, Section 627.6699(2), Florida Statutes, is applicable here because the Policy is a de facto health insurance policy. See Findings of Fact 15-16 and Conclusions of Law 24-27. First sentence rejected as contrary to more persuasive evidence. See Findings of Fact 15-16 and Conclusions of Law 19. First sentence rejected; More like a conclusion of law or legal argument the substance of which is not persuasive. Second sentence irrelevant. Irrelevant. Accepted but subordinate to Findings of Fact 15-16. NAIC's stop loss model act supports the proposition that the Policy is not a stop loss insurance policy but rather a health insurance policy. Accepted in part as restated in Conclusions of Law 19. Accepted but subordinate to Findings of Fact 15-16. Accepted but subordinate to Findings of Fact 15-16. Irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to more persuasive evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. Not a finding of fact. Not a finding of fact. More like a conclusion of law. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 2. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 11, 15-16. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 10, 15-16, and Conclusions of Law 22, 24-27. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 4-8 and 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10 and Conclusions of Law 22. Accept that the Policy provides for a specific attachment point of not less than $500; See Findings of Fact 8, 15 and 16. There is no evidence that the Policy's specific attachment point can be no more than $1,000. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 5-8. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 8. Accepted as restated in Conclusions of Law 22. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 9, 11-13 and Conclusions of Law 22, 24-27. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 9-13. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 11. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 14. Reject that Petitioner could totally avoid the coverage responsibilities otherwise imposed by Section 627.6699, Florida Statutes, merely by setting the Policy's attachment points at the same level as the deductible in the Plan. If the Plan's deductible was $500 and the Policy's specific attachment point was $500, the employee would pay the first $500 of expenses, the employer would be responsible for the next $500 of expenses, and Petitioner would reimburse the employer for 100 percent of any excess eligible expenses for that employee during the contract year. However, Petitioner can totally avoid paying for state mandated protections because the Policy will mirror any prohibited exclusions or provisions in the Plan. Substance accepted in part; See Findings of Fact 15-16. There is no evidence that the Policy's specific attachment point can be as high as $2,000. Accepted as restated in Findings of Fact 16; See Conclusions of Law 24-27. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael H. Davidson, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Frank J. Santry, Esquire Granger, Santry, et al. Post Office Box 14129 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Bill Nelson, State Treasurer Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether petitioner owes respondent premiums on account of insurance coverage (Family I) under the State Employees Group Health Insurance Program from March 1, 1979, to August 31, 1981? If so, whether petitioner is obligated to pay the underpayment as a condition of continued insurance coverage?
Findings Of Fact Until December 6, 1978, petitioner, who has worked as a forest ranger for Florida's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services since 1967 or 1968, was married to Betty R. Brogdon, the mother of his two children. Betty Brogdon was employed by Florida's Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services at the time of the dissolution of her marriage to petitioner. A provision of the dissolution decree required petitioner to maintain health insurance in effect for the children. During the marriage, in April of 1978, petitioner applied for, and received Family I insurance in the Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan, Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, continuing the coverage under a predecessor policy. Petitioner paid a premium for the Family I coverage reduced by certain employer contributions, after formally bringing to his supervisor's attention the fact that Betty R. Brogdon was also a state employee, and signing forms to that effect. Before August 1, 1979, the employer contributed 75 percent of the amount of the premium for Individual I coverage for each employee. From August 1, 1979, until August 1, 1980, the employer contributed, in addition, 25 percent of the family premium. On and after August 1, 1980, the employer contribution for each employee increased to 75 percent of the amount of the premium for Individual I coverage plus 50 percent of the family premium. Since this amount exceeds the total premium for Family I, families with this coverage in which both spouses work for state government have paid no insurance premium for Family I coverage since April 1, 1980. After the marriage ended, Betty Brogdon applied, on February 6, 1979, for Individual I health insurance, by submitting a form through the personnel office at the Sunland Center in Marianna, where she was employed. Since she had been a beneficiary under the family policy that her husband kept in force while they were married, her application reflected no change in that policy. When it reached the Bureau of Insurance of the Department of Administration, it was indistinguishable from any other new application by an employee who had not signed up when beginning work. After medical approval on May 7, 1979, she received Individual I coverage for herself only. Petitioner works with four other forest rangers and a supervisor at a site seven miles west of Marianna. There is no "personnel technician" stationed there and none visits. He told his supervisor of the divorce and, on March 2, 1979, filled out a "personnel action request" form furnished by a district office of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services in Bonifay, Florida, indicating "[m]arital and dependent change," which reached the Director of the Division of Forestry on March 9, 1979. Like other forms of its kind, this form never reached the Bureau of Insurance of the Department of Administration. The Bureau of Insurance did receive, however, on August 13, 1981, a "change of information" form reporting the Brogdons' dissolution of marriage on December 6, 1978. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. Effective the following month, on advice of the Bureau of Insurance, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services subtracted from petitioner's paychecks the same insurance premium other employees not married to state employees paid for Family I coverage. The Bureau of Insurance lacks authority to make such deductions itself. Between March of 1980 and December 31, 1982, the only claims submitted under the policy were for petitioner himself. But for the $100.00 deductible, these claims were paid. The difference between what a state employee married to another state employee paid for Family I insurance coverage between July 1, 1979, and August 31, 1981, and what a state employee not married to another state employee paid for the same coverage amounts to $864.42.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent direct petitioner to pay the sum of eight hundred sixty-four dollars and forty two cents ($864.42) within ninety (90) days of entry of final order. If petitioner fails to make timely payment, that respondent cancel his Family I State Employees Group Health Insurance Program policy. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 11th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben R. Patterson, Esquire 1215 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32315 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nevin G. Smith, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner's claim for medical expenses from August 6, 1982 through February 27, 1983 should be approved, pursuant to the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan. Petitioner appeared at the hearing accompanied by legal counsel. The Hearing Officer thereupon explained his rights and procedures to be followed in the administrative hearing. Petitioner acknowledged that he understood his rights and elected to represent himself. Petitioner testified in his own behalf at the hearing and the parties stipulated to the introduction of Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2. A late filed exhibit, Respondent's Exhibit 3, was also admitted in evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of one witness, William R. Seaton, Benefit Analyst for the Respondent's Bureau of Insurance.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Thomas J. Appleyard, III, is a former state employee who retired with disability in 1976 as a result of cardiac disease. At the time Petitioner retired, he maintained coverage in the state Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan under which the Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. serves as the administrator of the plan for the state. Petitioner also receives disability benefits under the Medicare program for medical expenses. (Testimony of Petitioner) The State Group Health Self Insurance Plan provides in Section X, COORDINATION OF BENEFITS, that if an insured has coverage under Medicare, the benefits payable under the state plan will be coordinated with similar benefits paid under the other coverage to the extent that the combination of benefits will not exceed 100 percent of the costs of services and supplies to the insured. Paragraph D of Section X provides that the state plan will be the secondary coverage in such situations and will pay benefits only to the extent that an insured's existing insurance coverage does not entitle him to receive benefits equal to 100 percent of the allowable covered expenses. This provision applies when the claim is on any insured person covered by Medicare. (Testimony of Seaton, Respondent's Exhibit 3) Petitioner was hospitalized at the Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center on three occasions in 1982-33. His Medicare coverage paid all but $261.75 of the hospital expenses. In February 1983, Petitioner also incurred medical expenses to his cardiologist, Dr. J. Galt Allee, in the amount of $248.33. Petitioner was originally denied his remaining hospital expenses by the administrator of the state plan under the erroneous belief that he was receiving regular Medicare benefits for persons over the age of 65. In addition, Dr. Allee's bill was only partially paid by Medicare, subject to the receipt of additional information from the physician. Payment under the state plan was limited to an amount sufficient to reimburse petitioner 100 percent of the amount originally allowed by Medicare. (Testimony of Seaton, petitioner, Respondent's Exhibit 1, 3) Respondent does not receive information on claims filed under the state plan until contacted by an employee. In February 1984, Petitioner requested assistance from William R. Seaton, Benefit Analyst, of Respondent's Bureau of Insurance, regarding his difficulties in receiving proper claims payments. Seaton investigated the matter with the Insurance administrator for the state, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, and discovered that the latter had not coordinated the hospital expense balance with Medicare. They thereafter did so and as of the date of hearing, there was no longer a balance due to Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center. Seaton also gave written instructions to Blue Cross to review all of Petitioner's claims and make sure that they were paid properly, and to install controls on his and his wife's records. (Testimony of Petitioner, Seaton, Respondent's Exhibit 1-2) The full claim of Dr. Allee had not been paid by Medicare since it had been awaiting requested additional in formation from the physician. Such information was provided after a personal visit had been made to Dr. Allee by Seaton and Medicare then recognized additional eligible expenses. However, a balance of $36.00 is still owed to the physician due to the fact that Blue Cross/Blue Shield had not received the necessary payment information from Medicare as of the day before the hearing. (Testimony of Seaton, Respondent's Exhibit 1) Section XVII of the state's Group Health Self Insurance Plan benefit document provides that an employee who wishes to contest decisions of the state administrator considering the employee's coverage under the plan may submit a petition for a hearing for consideration by the Secretary of Administration. (Respondent's Exhibit 3)
