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.
The Issue Whether Respondents, by refusing to allow consumers to cancel their individual health insurance policies subsequent to the "free-look" period and thereby failing to refund premiums paid, engaged in conduct violative of Subsection 627.6043, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that the Petitioner has jurisdiction over Respondents, National States and Penn Treaty, during times material. On June 24, 1993, Petitioner filed a five count administrative complaint against National States alleging that 20 consumers had purchased various types of health insurance policies and that such policy holders requested cancellation of those policies before the expiration date of their policy. The policy holders prepaid the premiums on such policies. National States refused to honor those requests for cancellation and did not refund the unearned premiums remaining on those policies. National States, by its assistant vice president, William O'Connor, advised those policy holders that they were not entitled to cancellation after the "free-look" period and therefore refused to refund any unearned premiums. Policy holders who were denied premium refunds include the following: Alexandrine Austin, Henry M. and Mary Lou Butler, Madeline Goding, William O. and Rowena Haisten, Sebastian N. and Jane E. Imme, Teresa Karl, John F. Killinger, J. Robert Merriman, Nell I. Mooney, Ralph Motta, Kathryn Patterson, Alene R. Smith, and Bernadine Weiss. On June 17, 1993, Petitioner filed a three count administrative complaint against Penn Treaty alleging that certain consumers had purchased various health insurance policies, that the policy holders requested cancellation of those policies prior to the expiration and Penn Treaty refused to honor those requests for cancellation and to refund any unearned premium remaining. Penn Treaty advised those policy holders, by letter, that they could not cancel their policies after the "free-look" period. The policy holders who were denied cancellation and/or a refund by Penn Treaty were Adelbert Gronvold, George and Marie Hutnyak and George F. and Elizabeth M. MacVicar. Health insurance policies do not contain a provision granting the policy holder the right to cancel. Ms. Kitterman, a former employee of Petitioner who has reviewed health insurance policies for over sixteen (16) years, was familiar with such policy forms. She has not seen a provision in an individual health insurance policy which specifically granted an insured the right to cancel a policy midterm. Dr. Solomon, an expert with extensive knowledge concerning health insurance policy provisions or the absence thereof, opined that health insurance policies do not contain a provision dealing with the ability or the right of the insured to cancel or not to cancel their health insurance policy. Finally, Ms. Andrews, the assistant bureau chief of life and health forms for approximately eight (8) years, has also personally reviewed health insurance policy forms. Ms. Andrews supervised the insurance analysts who reviewed such forms and corroborate the testimony of Kitterman and Solomon that such policy forms do not contain a provision addressing the insured's right to cancel. Petitioner has never required an individual health policy form to contain a provision regarding an insured's right to cancel. Although Petitioner does not require such a provision, it does insist that companies refund unearned premiums once an insured files a request to cancel pursuant to Section 627.6043, Florida Statutes. A discussion of the "free-look" period is contained in Rule 4-154.003, Florida Administrative Code, entitled "Insured's Right to Return Policy; Notice". That rule states: It is the opinion of the insurance commissioner that it will be in the public interest and of benefit to all if the person to whom the policy is issued has the opportunity to return the policy if he is not satisfied with it, provided such return is made within a reasonable length of time after receipt of the policy; therefore, each and every company issuing for delivery a disability policy in this state is requested to have printed or stamped thereon, or attached thereto a notice in a prominent place stating in substance that the person to whom the policy or contract is issued shall be permitted to return the policy or contract within ten (10) days of its delivery to said purchaser and to have the premium paid refunded if, after examination of the policy or contract, the purchaser is not satisfied with it for any reason. The notice may provide that if the insured or purchaser pursuant to such notice returns the policy or contract to the insurer at its home office or branch office or to the agent through whom it was purchased, it shall be void from the beginning and the parties shall be in the same position as if no policy or contract had been issued. This rule shall not apply to either single premium non-renewal policies or contracts or travel accident policies or contracts. Notices in this Rule 4-154.003 and in Rule 4.154.001 may be combined. (emphasis added) Thus, if a policy is returned during the "free look" period, the company is required to return the entire premium paid. The "free-look" period allows the consumer an opportunity to review the contract for the designated period of time. It allows them to make sure that it was the type of contract they intended to purchase and to review the application that was submitted to the company to verify that the information on it is correct. "Guaranteed renewable" is defined in Rule 4-154.004, Florida Administrative Code, titled "Non-cancellable or non-cancellable and guaranteed renewable policy; Use of Terms." That rule states: The terms "non-cancellable" or "non-cancellable and guaranteed renewable" may be used only in a policy which the insured has the right to continue in force by the timely payment of premiums set forth in the policy until at least age 50, or in the case of a policy issued after age 44, for at least five years from its date of issue, during which period the insurer has no right to make unilaterally any change in any provision of the policy while the policy is in force. Except as provided above, the term "guaranteed renewable" may be used only in a policy in which the insured has the right to continue in force by the timely payment of premiums until at least age 50, or in the case of a policy issued after age 44, for at least five years from its date of issue, during which period the insurer has no right to make unilaterally any change in any provision of the policy while the policy is in force, except that the insurer may make changes in premium rates by classes. The foregoing limitation on use of the term "non-cancellable" shall also apply to any synonymous term such as "not cancellable" and the limitation on use of the term "guaranteed renewable" shall also apply to any synonymous term such as "guaranteed continuable". Nothing herein contained is intended to restrict the development of policies having other guarantees of renewability, or to prevent the accurate description of their terms of renewability or the classification of such policies as guaranteed renewable or non-cancellable for any period during which there may be actually be such, provided the terms used to describe them in policy contracts and advertising are not such as may readily be confused with the above terms. Thus, the term "guaranteed renewable" as defined by Petitioner's rule notably does not contain any prohibitions against an insured's ability to cancel. Both Dr. Solomon and National States expert, E. Paul Barnhart, agreed that the industry meaning of "guaranteed renewable" is that companies guarantee renewability of a health or accident policy but do not guarantee that the rate will remain constant. Guaranteed renewable policies may be cancelled by the company only for nonpayment of premium or for false statements made by the insured in the application. Guaranteed renewable policies can also be cancelled by the company at the terminal point which, for most of National States policy holders, is when the insured dies but, in a few cases, at age 65. Whether a policy is marketed by the company as "guaranteed renewable" is a business decision made by the insurer generally to meet competition. Thus, the insurer, in making the decision to market an insurance policy as guaranteed renewable, waives any right that might otherwise be available to the insurer to cancel or non-renew except those authorized by statute which are, as noted, nonpayment of premium and material misrepresentation. Nowhere in any of the expert's opinions or Petitioner's witnesses is the term guaranteed renewable construed to mean that an insured has also waived the right to cancel a health insurance policy. All health insurance policies are cancellable by the insurer unless the company has chosen to market the policy as non-cancellable or guaranteed renewable which, as noted, may be only cancelled for nonpayment of premium and material misrepresentation. Dr. Solomon's opinion is based on the equitable theory that an insurance company, when it writes a health policy, does not immediately earn all of the premium collected, and the insured is therefore entitled to the unearned premium if he cancels midterm. Mr. Barnhart confirmed that a premium is not totally earned the moment it is collected but that "it's earned over the period of time for which the premium has been paid . . . if someone pays an annual premium, say on July 1, 1993, that annual premium would become earned at a steady rate over the year that follows and become fully earned as of June 30, 1994." When a premium is received for health and accident policies, the company will establish an unearned premium reserve, which is a basic reserve set up as a result of the payment of premiums and represents, at any given point in time, that portion of the premium that remains unearned. Insurance companies are required by law to maintain unearned premium reserves because they have not earned the premium. Unearned premium reserve is typically a section in the balance sheet of a company that is reserved for that purpose of paying back premiums that are not earned, or holding premiums in that account, as a segregated item, until such time as they are earned. Refunds of premiums are made on the basis of either a short-rate or a pro-rata table. Short-rate refunds are for the purpose of returning a portion of the insured's premium in the event that the insured elects to cancel midterm. The insured is penalized for cancelling the policy midterm under the short-term rate table by absorbing some of the company's expenses of underwriting the policy and administrative costs. That is, if the insured cancels an annual policy within one month after which an annual premium has been paid, the insured will receive less than 11/12ths of the advance premium. Pro-rata refunds mean equal distribution which is the refund procedure used when the insurer makes the decision to cancel. Thus, if the insurer cancels an insured's policy that is so cancellable by the insurer in the annual policy example, the insurer would be liable to make a pro-rata refund of premium to the insured which will be 11/12ths of the premium paid. Thus, an insured is not penalized when it is the insurer who exercises its right to cancel any policies which are so cancellable by the insurer. Section 627.6043(2), Florida Statutes, states: In the event of a cancellation, the insurer will return promptly the unearned portion of any premium paid. If the insured cancels, the earned premium shall be computed by the use of the short- rate table last filed with the state official having supervision of insurance with the state where the insured resided when the policy was issued. If the insurer cancels, the earned premium shall be computed pro-rata. Cancellation shall be without prejudice to any claim originating prior to the effective date of cancellation. (emphasis added) Ellen Andrews, the Department's former assistant bureau chief for life and health insurance forms several years prior to 1989, and in 1989 when the statute at issue was initially rewritten by the Legislature and as it is currently written, was familiar with the development of Petitioner's position as the statute went through renumberings in 1990 and 1992. It was part of Ms. Andrews' duties and responsibilities to assist Petitioner in the interpretation of that statute. It was her ultimate responsibility to be in charge of implementation of that statute. Petitioner's initial interpretation has remained unchanged since the statute was initially reworded in 1989 and moved to its various sections of part 6 of Chapter 627, Florida Statutes. The Department's opinion and decision on the meaning of what is currently Section 627.6043(2), Florida Statutes, is that if the insured cancels a policy midterm, the insured would be entitled to a return of premium pursuant to the short-rate table if one was filed with the Department. The Department further interprets the statute to mean that the insurer has a right to cancel, unless the insurer has waived that right by selling a guaranteed renewable or non-cancellable policy and if an insurer exercises that right, the insurer must make a refund to the insured on a pro-rata basis. Petitioner's position is based on the statutory provision that the insured shall receive a return of premium if the insured cancels and that if the insured didn't have a right to cancel, then the insured wouldn't have a right to receive a refund of premium. In 1989, Petitioner took the initiative to obtain statutory authority for its position by submitting a proposed draft to the Legislature revising the statute in order to provide insureds, by statute, the right to receive a return of the unearned premium upon notifying the insurer of their decision to cancel the individual health insurance policies. Mr. Barnhart verified that there would be no claims incurred once a policy ceases to be in force; that National States refund a portion of the premium when a policy is rescinded or terminated and that National States refunds unearned premiums when an insured dies midterm of the policy period whether required by statute or not. Penn Treaty refunds unearned premiums upon death and has a provision in its individual health and accidental insurance policies which provides that the insured shall receive a refund of unearned premiums upon death. From an actuarial perspective, there is no difference between either death or cancellation in midterm of a policy period by an insured. Penn Treaty sells, in Florida, long term care, home health care and medicare supplement insurance policies. National States generally sells guaranteed renewable policies in Florida. National States' position is that health and accident policies are not cancellable by the insured in Florida and that only medicare supplement policies are cancellable by the insured because there is a provision in the policy that allows an insured to cancel and because there is statutory authority for the insured to cancel that policy. Its position is that Section 627.6043, Florida Statutes, does not provide for cancellation by the insured. However, National States allows that the statutes regarding cancellation under the medicare supplement law, Section 627.6741(4), Florida Statutes, mandates refunds to insureds who request cancellation of their medicare supplement policies. National States allow cancellations by insureds and refunds unearned premiums on health insurance policies in those other states which have statutes requiring such refunds. Likewise, Penn Treaty's position is that home health care and long term care policies are not cancellable by the insured because there is no provision in the contract to allow cancellation and because they are guaranteed renewable policies. Its position also is that the insured does not have the right to cancel, either contractually or statutorily. Respondents relied on legal opinions from their counsel (in Florida) and an opinion from Petitioner dated June 12, 1991 to deny refunds. Florida law addressing an insured's right to cancel a medicare supplement policy is at Section 627.6741(4), Florida Statutes. That section provides, in pertinent part, that: If a policy is cancelled, the insurer must return promptly the unearned portion of any premium paid. If the insured cancels the policy, the earned premium shall be computed by the use of the short-rate table last filed with the state official having supervision of insurance in the state where the insured resided when the policy was issued. If the insurer cancels, the earned premium shall be computed pro-rata. Cancellation shall be without prejudice to any claim originating prior to the effective date of the cancellation period. (emphasis added) The above statute is the only Florida law which addresses an insured's right to cancel his medicare supplement policy. Florida law requires that medicare supplement policies be guaranteed renewable. That law is found at Section 627.6741(2)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides: For both individual and group medicare supplement policies: an insurer shall neither cancel nor non-renew a medicare supplement policy or certificate for any reason other than non payment of premium or material misrepresentation. Respondents' position is that in Florida, insureds who purchase their policies are elderly and are easily led. If allowed to cancel, Respondents contend that they would lose out on a number of protections that they would be entitled to if they were required to keep their policies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order requiring Respondents to make refunds of premiums to all policy holders who request the cancellation of their health insurance policies after October 1, 1989, with 12 percent interest from the date cancellation was requested and further that Respondents' certificates of authority be placed on suspension for a period of twelve (12) months. It is further recommended that the suspension be suspended upon Respondents, payment of the unearned premiums to the above-referenced consumers. 1/ DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 1st day of March, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for the licensure and discipline of persons holding or those eligible to hold various insurance licenses. At all times material to this case, Respondent was licensed and eligible for licensure in this state as a health insurance agent. For all policies described below, Respondent was eligible to receive a sales commission and a bonus package which provided Respondent incentive to complete sales of insurance policies. At all times material to this case, Respondent acted as a sales agent for the following insurance companies: Diversified Health Services, National States Insurance Company, Penn Treaty, and Transport Life. Respondent sold health insurance policies, Medicare supplements, home nursing-care policies, nursing home policies, and booster plans to supplement additional coverage under Part B of Medicare. On or about April 20, 1988, Respondent went to the home of Martha and Sam Klingensmith in Port St. Lucie, Florida. Respondent's visit was in response to an information lead card that Mrs. Klingensmith had mailed to an insurance company. Mr. Klingensmith had had surgery in January, 1988, on a malignant brain tumor. Mrs. Klingensmith was anxious for her husband to receive the best care possible and hoped to obtain insurance benefits to help with the costs associated with that care. Mrs. Klingensmith told Respondent about her husband, who was too sick to be interviewed by Respondent (he was bedridden in another room). At that time Mrs. Klingensmith advised Respondent that she and her husband had Medicare supplement policies through a group policy from AARP. Respondent did not review that policy. On or about April 20, 1988, Respondent completed insurance applications for Mr. and Mrs. Klingensmith for nursing home insurance policies. The application form provided, in part, the following questions: Is the insurance being applied for intended to replace any accident or sickness insurance, health service or health maintenance contract? * * * Complete the following for each person named above who now has insurance in force or pending: * * * Does any person above have or ever had any of the following: (Underline condition) A. Tumor, cancer, malignancy or growth of any kind? * * * g. Disease of the rectum or intestine, stomach, kidney, prostate, urinary bladder, liver, gall bladder? * * * 7.a. Has any person named above consulted or been treated by any physician or practitioner in the last five years? b. Has any person named above been confined in a hospital in the last five years? * * * 9.a. List conditions for which medication has been taken or doctor consulted within the past six months: * * * 10. If any part of questions 6 or 7 was answered YES give details--otherwise--answer question by stating "NONE" On the application form for Mr. Klingensmith, Respondent wrote the following responses: as to question 4, "No" was entered; as to question 5, "NONE" was entered; as to 6.a. "Yes" was checked; as to questions 7a. and 7b., "Yes" was checked; as to question 9, only medications not conditions were listed; and under question 10, the remaining effects were indicated as "Good Health." The answers given by Respondent to questions 5, 9, and 10 were incorrect and contrary to the information Mrs. Klingensmith had given Respondent. Mrs. Klingensmith signed the application for her husband. On Mrs. Klingensmith's application form completed by Respondent on April 20, 1988, the answer to question 5 was incorrect and contrary to the information Mrs. Klingensmith had given Respondent. On or about May 17, 1988, Respondent returned to the Klingensmith home and completed an application for Mr. Klingensmith for an extended care insurance policy. The application for that policy was identical to the one described above. Respondent completed the form and gave the same responses that are indicated above. Respondent knew that Mr. Klingensmith had the National States policy from April, 1988, and he failed to include that information on the application. Further, since Mr. Klingensmith remained bedridden, the response of "good health" to question 10 continued to be false and contrary to the information supplied by Mrs. Klingensmith. On August 17, 1988, Respondent went to the Klingensmith home and completed two applications for Mr. 5 Klingensmith: one for a Medicare supplement insurance policy and one for a hospital confinement indemnity insurance policy; both to be issued by National States. On September 14, 1988, Respondent went to the Klingensmith home and completed an application for Mr. Klingensmith to receive a medical/surgical insurance policy from National States. That application did not disclose any of the prior policies sold by Respondent, was again signed by Mrs. Klingensmith (her husband continued to be gravely ill), and falsely stated that Mr. Klingensmith was in good health. At all times material to the sales of the five policies described above for Mr. Klingensmith, Respondent knew or should have known that Mr. Klingensmith was terminally ill. Respondent either did not report the information given by Mrs. Klingensmith or chose not to inquire further based upon the answers she gave him. Mr. Klingensmith died, at home, in October, 1988. In connection with the Klingensmith policies Respondent was required to complete a certification form pursuant to Rule 4-46.004, Florida Administrative Code. That form is to be signed by the insurance applicant. Without Mrs. Klingensmith's prior consent or knowledge, Respondent executed certification forms on behalf of the Klingensmiths. In August, 1988, Mrs. Klingensmith asked Respondent to examine a cancer insurance policy issued by Bankers Fidelity Life Insurance Company covering the Klingensmiths. Respondent failed to disclose that policy on the applications completed in August and September, 1988. Further, Respondent failed to accurately disclose the benefits of that policy to Mrs. Klingensmith. The cancer policy would provide additional benefits which the Respondent should have known could be helpful since Mr. Klingensmith had been diagnosed with a malignant tumor. In September, 1988, Respondent sold a medical/surgical policy to Charles Areni. Subsequently, in April, 1989, Mr. Areni asked Respondent to assist him in the completion of claims forms. Respondent went to Mr. Areni's home, helped him complete the claims forms, and sold him a National States Medicare supplement insurance policy. At that time, Respondent knew Mr. Areni had been hospitalized since a cancerous prostate problem had reoccurred, and that Mr. Areni was taking medication for pain associated with his most recent surgery. The application completed by Respondent for Mr. Areni was the same form described in paragraph 6 above. Respondent submitted the following false responses to the questions posed by that questionnaire: in response to question 5, "None" was entered; to question 6a. Respondent checked "No" when he knew or should have known (based upon Mr. Areni's answers) that the prostate condition was cancerous; and "None" to question 9. Further, Respondent provided that Mr. Areni was in good health in response to question 10. At that time Mr. Areni was not in good health, and, while his prognosis was uncertain, it was apparent that he was in poor health. On or about January 19, 1989, Respondent went to the home of Ruth Stone in Fort Pierce, Florida. That visit was 7 in response to Mrs. Stone's mailed in lead card. At that time, Mrs. Stone was insured by American Life Assurance Corporation with whom she had a Medicare supplement policy. Mrs. Stone told Respondent about her policy but did not show it to him. Without reviewing the existing policy, Respondent advised Mrs. Stone that a policy he could offer her through National States would be a better buy. Based upon Respondent's representations, Mrs. Stone elected to apply for a policy through Respondent. To that end, Respondent completed the application described in paragraph 6 for Mrs. Stone. Respondent answered question 5 incorrectly since he knew that Mrs. Stone had a current policy. Later, after speaking with her other agent, Mrs. Stone cancelled the National States policy by stopping payment on her check. She later gave a sworn statement to the Department. After Respondent found out about Mrs. Stone's complaint to the Department, he asked her to change her statement since he might lose his job. On or about February 17, 1988, Respondent went to the home of Edward and Julia Whitham in Fort Pierce, Florida. Respondent sold the Whithams Medicare supplement policies to be issued by National States. The policies sold to the Whithams did not cover dental or optical services. At the time they purchased the policies, the Whithams were under the impression that optical and dental services were covered. Respondent signed the certifications required by Rule 4-46.004, Florida Administrative Code, for the Whithams without their prior consent or approval.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance, Office of the Treasurer enter a final order revoking the Respondent's health care insurance license. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 7th day of August, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Nancy S. Isenberg and Dennis Silverman Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services Room 412, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Kelli Hanley Crabb Battaglia, Ross, Hastings & Dicus, P.A. 980 Tyrone Boulevard St. Petersburg, Florida 3371014 APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 89-4986 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 35 are accepted. Paragraph 36 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 37 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 38 is accepted. Paragraphs 39 through 48 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraph 3 is accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 5 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 6 is accepted as to the fact that the Whithams purchased policies from Respondent; otherwise, rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 7 is rejected as unsupported by the record. Paragraph 8 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 9, it is accepted that the Whithams asked that their policies be reinstated; otherwise rejected as unsupported by the record or irrelevant. Paragraph 10 is rejected as unsupported by the record. The first sentence of paragraph 11 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 12 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 13 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 14 is accepted as to their complaint against the company but is irrelevant. The first sentence of paragraph 15 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted with the notation that Mrs. Stone did advise Respondent that she had a policy in effect. She was shopping for a cheaper policy that offered as good or better benefits. Respondent made no effort to review Mrs. Stone's policy. Paragraph 16 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 17, it is accepted that based upon Respondent's representations, Mrs. Stone purchased a national States policy; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 18 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. With regard to paragraph 19, it is accepted that Mrs. Stone spoke with her agent and decided to stop payment on the check to National States; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is not supported by the record and is, therefore, rejected. Paragraph 21 is rejected as-irrelevant. Paragraph 22 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 23, it is accepted that the application disclosed a prostate condition; otherwise rejected as not supported by the record. Paragraph 24 is accepted. Paragraph 25 is accepted. Paragraph 26 is accepted with the notation that Respondent did not complete the application with all of the pertinent information that Mr. Areni gave him; consequently, Respondent was attempting to have the policy issued when he knew or should have known that Mr. Areni's cancer would preclude him from being eligible. Paragraph 27 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence; see the notation to paragraph 26 above. Paragraph 28 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 29 through 31 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 32 is accepted. With regard to the second sentence, it is accepted that Respondent was not supposed to write insurance for cancer patients, however, the overwhelming evidence in this case established that Respondent did just that. The first sentence of paragraph 33 is accepted. It is further accepted that Mrs. Klingensmith executed the applications on behalf of herself and her husband; otherwise the paragraph is rejected as either unsupported by the record or contrary to the weight of the evidence. The first sentence of paragraph 34 is accepted. The remainder is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence since the comment was only made in relation to Mr. Klingensmith's day-to-day behavior. He undoubtedly had some good days relative to his more severe days. It is further concluded that Mr. Klingensmith was never seen by any visiting insurance person other than as a bedridden person. Mr. Bessimer's comment that Mr. Klingensmith could have been napping was not credible in light of the total circumstances known to Respondent. Paragraph 35 is accepted but is irrelevant. The second sentence of paragraph 36 is accepted. With regard to the first sentence of that paragraph, it is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Mrs. Klingensmith's account of the conversation has been deemed more credible than the Respondent's. Paragraphs 37, 38, and the first sentence of paragraph 39 are accepted. With regard to the remainder of paragraph 39, it is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 40 is accepted but is irrelevant.
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to a waiver of the limitations in the state group health self insurance plan regarding pre-existing conditions during the first 12 months of coverage under the plan.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the testimony presented at the hearing, and on the exhibits received in evidence, I make the following findings of fact. The Petitioner was first employed by the Department of Transportation as a Clerk Typist Specialist on October 31, 1986. As a new employee, the Petitioner was entitled to select health insurance under the state group health self insurance plan or with a participating health maintenance organization (HMO). The state group health self insurance plan and the HMO's each have different benefits and premiums. The Petitioner's direct supervisor is Ms. Gwen Molander. On October 30, 1986, the day prior to her first day of employment, the Petitioner met with her supervisor to sign the employment paperwork. On that day Ms. Molander called the Department of Transportation personnel office in Lake City for the purpose of finding out whether the state group health self insurance plan would cover pre-existing allergy conditions of the Petitioner's son. Ms. Molander specifically asked the Lake City personnel office if the plan would cover the Petitioner's son if the son was under the care of an allergist. The words "pre- existing condition" were not used in the conversation Ms. Molander had with the Lake City personnel office. The Lake City personnel office told Ms. Molander that the Petitioner's son would be covered even if it was not an open enrollment period. The Petitioner authorized a "double-up" deduction so the health insurance would be effective as of December 1, 1986. The Petitioner's son has been covered as a dependent under the Petitioner's health insurance since December 1, 1986. Based on the information from the Lake City personnel office, the Petitioner believed that the state group health self insurance plan would provide coverage for all of her son's medical expenses without any limitation regarding pre-existing conditions. The Petitioner's son had a pre-existing allergy condition for which he received medical treatment in December of 1986 and thereafter. Since December of 1986 the Petitioner has incurred medical bills of approximately $2,000.00 for treatment related to her son's pre-existing allergy condition. The state group health self insurance plan has refused to pay any of the medical expenses related to the treatment of the pre-existing allergy condition of the Petitioner's son. The state group health self insurance plan contains a provision to the effect that "no payment shall be made for pre- existing conditions during the first 12 months of coverage under the Plan." Accordingly, the refusal to pay described above is consistent with the provisions of the state group health self insurance plan. At the time the Petitioner chose to enroll in the state group health self insurance plan, she could also have chosen any of three HMO programs available to state employees in he Gainesville area. Petitioner chose the state group health self insurance plan because of her belief that it provided coverage for her son's pre-existing allergy condition. There is no competent substantial evidence in the record in this case regarding the coverage provided by the three available HMO's, the limitations (if any) on the coverage, or the cost to the employee of such coverage. At the time the Petitioner chose to enroll in the state group health self insurance plan, her employing office did not have any written information regarding the health insurance options available to new employees. There is no evidence that the Petitioner attempted to obtain information regarding health insurance options from any source other than her direct supervisor and the Lake City personnel office. On the insurance enrollment form signed by the Petitioner, dated October 31, 1986, the Petitioner was put on notice and acknowledged that coverage and the effective dates of coverage under the state group health self insurance plan were governed by Rule Chapter 22K-1, Parts I and II, Florida Administrative Code, and by the plan benefit document, "regard-less of any statements or representations made to me. " The Petitioner has previously worked in the insurance field and she is familiar with limitations on coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Administration issue a final order in this case denying the relief requested by the Petitioner and dismissing the petition in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 29th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1485 The following are my specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by both parties: Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner As noted in the introductory portion of the recommended order in this case, the Petitioner's post-hearing submission consists of a letter dated May 12, 1987. Although the letter does not contain any statements which are identified as proposed findings of fact, in light of the lesson taught by Kinast v. Department of Professional Regulation, 458 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), all factual assertions in the letter of May 12, 1987, have been treated as though they were proposed findings of fact. The references which follow are to the unnumbered paragraphs and sentences of the letter of May 12, 1987. First unnumbered paragraph: This is an introductory comment only. Second unnumbered paragraph: First sentence is rejected as a proposed finding because not supported by evidence in the record. Second sentence is a statement of position rather than a proposed finding. Third sentence is rejected as a proposed finding because not supported by evidence in the record. Fourth sentence is a statement of the relief requested rather than a proposed finding. Fifth sentence is rejected as a proposed finding because it is inconsistent with the greater weight of the evidence. Third unnumbered paragraph: This entire paragraph is rejected as proposed findings because it consists of statement of position and argument rather than proposed facts. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are contained in twelve numbered paragraphs in Respondent's proposed recommended order. The paragraph references which follow are to each of those twelve paragraphs. Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: First sentence accepted. Second sentence is rejected in part and accepted in part; first ten words are rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. The remainder of the sentence is accepted. Paragraph 3: Accepted. Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance with correction of confused dates and deletion of irrelevant details. Paragraph 5: Accepted. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 12: Rejected as irrelevant due to the fact that no such literature was available at Petitioner's employing office. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Juanita L. Resmondo Department of Transportation Maintenance Office Post Office Box 1109 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Mark Alan Gable, is currently eligible for licensure and is licensed in Florida as a life and health insurance agent and was so licensed at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent at all times relevant to these proceedings was licensed in this state to solicit health insurance on behalf of National States Insurance Company (herein National). On or about September 28, 1988, Respondent visited the home of Mabel Bowmaster of Sarasota, Florida, for the purpose of soliciting health insurance. At the time, Ms. Bowmaster was insured under the provisions of a protective life medicare supplement insurance policy. Ms. Bowmaster was interested in purchasing a policy that offered custodial nursing care benefits as her protective life policy did not offer such coverage. Respondent was not a stranger to Ms. Bowmaster as he had sold her a medicare supplement policy in 1987 and had processed claims for Ms. Bowmaster during 1987, although she did not remember him. Although Ms. Bowmaster was interested in purchasing custodial care, when Respondent explained to her the cost of the coverage versus the benefits that she could receive, she was convinced that the premiums for a custodial care policy was too expensive and she declined to purchase the coverage. In fact, Respondent tendered a certification to Ms. Bowmaster which acknowledged that she had been explained the benefits, that she understood them and there is, in that medicare supplement policy, a specific exclusion of custodial care. (Respondent's Exhibit 18 and 3.) During August 1989, Ms. Bowmaster was visited by another insurance agent, a Chris Morrison, who was also soliciting insurance. At agent Morrison's urging, Ms. Bowmaster cancelled the medicare supplement policy that Respondent had sold her after he showed her a copy of a St. Petersburg Times article which was critical of Respondent and after Morrison suggested that Respondent was in trouble with the Petitioner. When Ms. Bowmaster cancelled her insurance policy that she purchased from Respondent, she wrote a letter to National States Insurance Company asking them not to honor the bank draft authorization that she had signed for the year 1989. Notwithstanding the letter Ms. Bowmaster sent to National, the bank draft was honored. As a result, Ms. Bowmaster filed an insurance consumer service complaint with Petitioner stating the reason for cancelling the policy was that she had duplicative coverage as a result of her purchase of the same coverage from Mr. Morrison and she therefore requested a refund of the National policy in light of her request that the bank draft be terminated. In none of Bowmaster's correspondence to National during August and November 1989, was there any reference of any misrepresentation of coverage by Respondent for custodial care coverage. On or about February 11, 1988, Respondent visited the home of Alice V. Bowling of Bradenton for the purpose of soliciting health insurance. Ms. Bowling is an 82 year-old widow whose primary source of income is social security. At the time, Ms. Bowling was insured under the provisions of a Prudential Insurance AARP (American's Association of Retired Persons) medicare supplement insurance policy and an Old Southern medicare supplement insurance policy. Respondent discussed with Ms. Bowling her existing insurance coverages. Ms. Bowling was interested in obtaining an insurance policy that would pay benefits for hearing aids, eyeglasses and dental care. Neither of her existing policies offered such benefits. Respondent's purpose in visiting Ms. Bowling during February of 1988 was to follow-up on a lapse of a National States Medical/Surgical policy. During the interview with Ms. Bowling, she informed Respondent that she had in effect a policy with AARP and the National policy that was soon to lapse. She did not tell him that she had a policy with Old Southern. While Ms. Bowling testified that she showed Respondent a copy of the Old Southern policy, the evidence adduced at hearing indicates otherwise. It was noted that when Respondent purchased the National States policy during 1987, she did not tell that agent about the existence of the Old Southern policy. (Respondent's Exhibit 7.) Additionally, when Ms. Bowling signed the notice to applicant regarding replacement of accident and sickness insurance form, she indicated that she was replacing a Prudential policy. The application for insurance also indicates her replacement for the Prudential policy. After Respondent reviewed with Ms. Bowling her AARP policy and the National States policy, he advised her that he could process some claims for her under the lapsed National States policy. As a result, Respondent submitted claims for Ms. Bowling and she was reimbursed for medical bills for which she had not previously sought payment. (Respondent's Composite Exhibit 8.) Respondent and Ms. Bowling discussed eyeglass and hearing aid coverage to determine if she should purchase it. However, based on Ms. Bowling's desire to hold the cost of insurance down, and after Respondent explained to her that under the eyeglass-hearing aid rider, it would cost her approximately $340 in premiums to get $500 in coverage, she declined such coverage. By way of example, Respondent explained that the premium for the rider was $125, deductible of $75 pays 80% with a maximum coverage of $500; so on a $700 bill, it would pay $500, indicating that the insurance payment of $340 was for $500 worth of benefits. Evidence of Ms. Bowling's rejection was noted in the outline of coverage which specifically excludes eye glasses and hearing aids. (Respondent's Exhibit 10.) Ms. Bowling acknowledged that the benefits of the policy was clearly explained to her. After Respondent's initial visit, Ms. Bowling decided to cancel the policy. Upon receiving notice of cancellation, Respondent called upon Ms. Bowling to determine her reason for cancelling the policy. Respondent again explained the coverage to Ms. Bowling in the presence of her son. Ms. Bowling acknowledges that Respondent explained to her at the second visit that eye glasses, dentures and hearing aids were not covered by the policy, that the rider would be required to provide that coverage; and she then again elected not to purchase the rider coverage but kept the policy in force. Evidence of this continuation of coverage is in Ms. Bowling's handwriting which reflects "After talking to my agent Mark Gable, I have decided to keep the UMS 1060437 in force." Thereafter, Ms. Bowling again decided to cancel the policy and in correspondence with National States, she related that after reviewing the policy with others, she concluded that she could not afford the coverage. Ms. Bowling, at the time, made no complaint about Respondent having misrepresented the existence of eyeglass or similar coverage, but simply requested a refund. After the company failed to forward a refund to Ms. Bowling, she filed a complaint with Petitioner asserting that she was entitled to a refund, but she made no reference to any claim of misrepresentation of coverage. At hearing, Ms. Bowling acknowledged that she cancelled the policy because the coverage was too expensive. Ms. Bowling made no mention of any misrepresentation by Respondent for coverage for eye glasses, dentures or hearing aids until the interviews by Petitioner's investigators. On or about July 19, 1990, Respondent visited the home of Fred V. Lively of Englewood for the purpose of discussing health insurance. At the time, Mr. Lively had recently purchased an American Traveler's Long-Term care insurance policy effective as of July 13, 1990, and offered custodial nursing care insurance benefits. It is alleged that Respondent sold a nursing home policy to Mr. Lively representing that the policy provided coverage for custodial care and he failed to advise Mr. Lively that the policy called for a three (3) day confinement in a hospital as a condition precedent to the payment of benefits. The policy that Respondent sold to Mr. Lively did not require such a waiting period as it included a rider eliminating the waiting period. This fact was confirmed by William J. O'Connor, the manager of policy services for National States. During July of 1990, Mr. Lively was running a lapse notice on the National States policy previously sold to him by Steve Daggett, a former employee of National States. Initially, Respondent showed the Livelys a Penn States policy and a Transport Life policy for nursing home care, both of which included custodial care. The premiums on both policies approached $5,000 a year and the Livelys determined that they were too expensive. As a result, they were rejected. Thereafter, Respondent explained the National States nursing care policy which provided skilled and intermediate care and the Livelys elected to purchase the nursing care policy. Prior to the Livelys purchase, Respondent reviewed the coverage provided and an outline of coverage was left with the Livelys as well as an outline prepared by Respondent. In addition, based on the pendency of administrative charges in this matter, Respondent had the Livelys acknowledge, in their own handwriting, that "all of the benefits of this outline has been explained to me in full and a signed copy of this outline has been left with me, by my agent, Agent is Mark Gable," followed by the signature of Fred Lively. (Respondent's Exhibits 15 and 16.) Additionally, the Livelys signed two further certifications and a customer survey report prepared by Respondent. This was done in an attempt by Respondent to avert claims generated by other agents by having new clients under certification to indicate that the coverage was explained. Shortly after the Respondent sold the insurance to the Livelys, Steve Daggett, the agent who had sold the Livelys their American Traveler's policy, arrived at the Livelys' home and convinced Mr. Lively that his policy was to have included custodial care; cited that Respondent had failed to reveal that and he (Daggett) related that Respondent had failed to reveal that he (Lively) suffered from diabetes for the purpose of suggesting that Respondent had "clean sheeted" the application which would thereafter result in a denial of coverage if a claim was made. A review of Respondent's application filed with the Lively deposition showed that Respondent revealed the existence of Mr. Lively's diabetes. Sometimes after August 21, 1990, Respondent again visited the Livelys and requested that they reconsider their decision to cancel the policy. Following Respondent's review of the policy and the coverages, Mr. Lively signed a letter which was submitted to National States requesting that the policy be kept in force. National States received the letter and the cancellation of the Lively policies was rescinded. On or about October 6, 1988, Respondent visited the home of Martha Roche for the purpose of soliciting health insurance. As a result of their discussion, Ms. Roche purchased two National States insurance policies. Although Ms. Roche testified that Respondent represented himself as an insurance adjuster for the purposes of gaining entry into her home, the testimony does not comport with the documentary evidence or her practice with respect to letting insurance agents into her home. At times, Ms. Roche has had as many as three insurance agents in her home at one time. Respondent was following up on a lapse notice with respect to prior National States policies which Ms. Roche had purchased from Respondent. At her front door, Respondent showed Ms. Roche his insurance license and she granted him entrance. On November 3, 1988, or less than thirty (30) days after the policy was originally written by Respondent, Respondent returned to Ms. Roche's home after receiving a notice of cancellation with respect to the policy in question. After discussing the matter with her, she decided to save the policy and wrote a handwritten note asking that the coverage be continued. During the November 3, 1988 meeting with Ms. Roche, which was well after the bank draft authorization had been submitted to National States, Ms. Roche indicated that she did not wish to stay on the draft plan in the following year. Respondent explained to Ms. Roche that she should write a letter to National States and to the bank to terminate the bank plan. In addition to this advice, Respondent was aware that National States would advise Ms. Roche of her right to terminate the bank plan and the procedure for termination as the bank plan is a contract between the insured and the bank. Respondent was without authority to terminate the bank plan that Ms. Roche authorized. Ms. Roche requested cancellation of the bank draft as Respondent instructed her, although the bank continued payment until she filed a complaint with Petitioner, complaining that National States insurance had failed to cancel her bank draft plan. Ms. Roche fails to allege in her complaint to Petitioner or otherwise suggest that Respondent used any false pretense to gain entry to her home. Ms. Roche's complaint was that National States did not refund her money after she wrote requesting a refund. Subsequently, a refund was given to Ms. Roche.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Second Amended Administrative Complaint filed herein in its entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 28th day of February, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Martin Errol Rice, Esquire 696 First Avenue North Post Office Box 205 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner is eligible to participate in the State of Florida's group health insurance plan.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Judy Stahl began her employment with the State of Florida as a public assistance specialist with the Department of Children and Families on October 4, 1991. She began participating in the State's group health insurance program on December 1, 1991. Petitioner voluntarily terminated her employment by the State on November 28, 2002, for personal reasons. In her letter of resignation she stated that it was her intention to again seek employment with the State after the personal situation which caused her to resign was concluded. Premiums for the State's group health insurance are paid one month in advance. Therefore, Petitioner's coverage under the State's group health insurance program continued through the end of December 2002. In January 2003, the State's Division of State Group Insurance notified Petitioner of her right to elect continuation coverage under the federal Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) and the federal Public Health Services Act (PHSA). Petitioner so elected and continued her participation in the State's group health insurance under COBRA for the maximum period of 18 months that was available to her. Her continuation coverage expired June 30, 2004. In May 2004 the State's Division of State Group Insurance notified Petitioner that her continuation coverage would soon expire and further advised her of her right to convert her insurance coverage to a private, individual policy. Petitioner exercised her option to convert to a private policy, effective July 1, 2004. In March 2005 the Florida Division of Retirement sent Petitioner an Estimate of Retirement Benefits. The Estimate contained the comment that: "As a result of a review of accounts for terminated members, it was determined that you are eligible for retirement benefits." The Estimate form was accompanied by a pamphlet explaining the Florida Retirement System Pension Plan. It was also accompanied by information on the State Employees' Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) health plan. The retirement pamphlet included the information that health insurance was available to retirees; however, the health insurance information advised that health insurance was only available to certain retirees. Petitioner concluded that if she retired, she could obtain cheaper health insurance from the State than from her private provider. This was the first time that Petitioner considered the possibility of retirement. Petitioner thereafter made many telephone calls to the Department of Children and Families, to the Division of Retirement, to the Division of State Group Insurance, and to People First, inquiring about retirement and insurance. These telephone inquiries were the first time she mentioned to any State employee or representative that she was interested in retiring. At the end of March 2005 she made the decision to retire and submitted her application for retirement benefits. Her effective retirement date was April 1, 2005. At the time Petitioner filed her application for retirement, she was no longer participating in the State's group health insurance program. At the time she filed her application for retirement, she was no longer participating in continuation coverage pursuant to COBRA. She was insured under a private policy. At the time of her initial enrollment in the State group health insurance program, Petitioner signed a new enrollee form that, inter alia, advised her that eligibility and enrollment were governed by the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 22K-l. During her employment she also enrolled in supplemental dental insurance. That enrollment application form notified Petitioner that any changes in enrollment or coverage are governed by the federal Internal Revenue Code and the Florida Administrative Code. Throughout her employment and at the time that she terminated her employment, she completed Annual Benefits Open Enrollment forms, which also notified her that any changes in enrollment or coverage are governed by the Internal Revenue Code and the Florida Administrative Code. While employed by the Department of Children and Families, Petitioner was provided with copies of the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefit Document. Those booklets describe eligibility for participation to include employees, certain retirees, and COBRA participants. They also describe termination of coverage due to termination of employment and describe continuation coverage and conversion coverage. At the time Petitioner retired, she was not a State employee; she was a former State employee.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner is not eligible to participate in the State's group health insurance program. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 19th day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark J. Berkowitz, Esquire Mark J. Berkowitz, P.A. 524 South Andrews Avenue, Suite 200N Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Sonja P. Matthews, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Tom Lewis, Jr., Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Alberto Dominguez, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for an upgrade in her insurance coverage from individual to family status should be granted with a retro-active effective date of October 13, 1994; the date of birth of Respondent's son.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Petitioner was initially employed and covered under the State Employees' State Group Health Self Insurance Plan on July 1, 1993. Petitioner selected individual coverage and completed the appropriate forms indicating such coverage. Effective January 1, 1994, Petitioner's coverage for the 1994 Plan Year continued with individual coverage. Petitioner became pregnant in April, 1994, with an estimated due date of December 6, 1994. However, she went into premature labor on October 12, 1994, at 32 weeks gestation. Attempts to stop her labor were unsuccessful and she delivered a son, Gavon K. Brown, by caesarean delivery on October 13, 1994. On October 22, 1994, Petitioner completed the required forms to change from individual coverage to family coverage. Respondent changed Petitioner's coverage to family coverage effective December 1, 1994. Other Facts Petitioner did not inform the personnel office at her place of state employment, Columbia Correctional Facility in Lake City, Florida of her pregnancy. Petitioner saw a private physician in Gainesville, Florida. The physician was concerned about Petitioner's excessive weight and referred her to the Park Avenue Women's Center in Gainesville sometime near the end of April, 1994. The Park Avenue Women's Center, associated with the University of Florida College of Medicine, treats women with at risk pregnancies. Petitioner was seen there by Dr. Kenneth Kelner, also a professor of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the University of Florida College of Medicine. As a registered nurse, Petitioner was aware that she was at an increased general risk for difficulty with her pregnancy as a result of her excessive weight. On August 5, 1994, as a result of problems with getting a medical bill paid by the State Employees' State Group Health Self Insurance Plan, Petitioner called offices of the administrator of the Plan, Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) in Jacksonville, Florida. In the course of her telephone conversation, Petitioner maintains that she was told she could switch to family coverage in order to cover expenses of her unborn child as late as 30 days prior to the birth, estimated and expected to occur on December 6, 1994. Petitioner had previously received The Benefit Payment Schedule on July 13, 1994, which contained a warning to pregnant women policyholders that single or individual coverage did not include coverage for a child following its birth and that family coverage would need to be in effect prior to the month of the child's birth to afford coverage for the child. During the August 5, 1994 telephone conversation with the representative of BCBS in Jacksonville, Petitioner inquired regarding the amount of the monthly premium for family coverage. Petitioner was referred to the Division of State Employees' Insurance (DSEI) and provided with that telephone number in order to acquire coverage for her unborn child and get further detailed information. Petitioner did not call DSEI. On October 12, 1994, in the course of a routine check-up, it was determined that Petitioner's cervix was dilated. Subsequently, Petitioner gave birth to her son at 1 a.m. on October 13, 1994. On October 13, 1994, Petitioner called the personnel office at her place of employment with the Department of Corrections and informed that office of the birth of her son. Although Petitioner maintains that she was told at that time by someone in the personnel office that her son would immediately be afforded insurance coverage, Petitioner presented no direct admissible evidence in corroboration of this allegation and her testimony in this respect is not credited. On October 22, 1994, while sitting in the hospital lobby waiting to visit her son, who remained in hospital care following his premature birth, Petitioner signed the required papers and forms to change from individual to family coverage. The forms, bearing an effective date for coverage change of December 1, 1994, were returned to Petitioner's personnel office without an accompanying check or other payment for any employee premium co-payment which would have permitted a construction that an earlier coverage effective date should have been assigned the policy change. Based upon the timing of the election made by Petitioner, expenses attributable solely to medical services received by the child prior to December 1, 1994, were not covered by the State Employees' State Group Health Self Insurance Plan.
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 Susie Simone Brown's petition in this matter. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 6th day of September, 1995. DON W. DAVIS, 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 6th day of September, 1995. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-24. Adopted, not verbatim. 25.-28. Rejected, unnecessary. 29.-40. Adopted by reference. 41.-42. Rejected, unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Petitioner's proposed findings consisted of one paragraph requesting that Respondent provide coverage for Petitioner's son effective on the date of his birth, October 13, 1994. The proposed finding is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Chief Department of Management Services Division of State Employees' Insurance 2002 Old St. Augustine Rd., B-12 Tallahassee, FL 32301-4876 Susie Simone Brown 2931 Bay Rd. Orange Park, FL 32065 William H. Linder Secretary Department of Management Services 2737 Centerview Dr., Ste. 307 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell General Counsel Department of Management Services 2737 Centerview Dr., Ste. 312 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950
The Issue Whether the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint, which is the subject of Case Number 01-2295, reflect statements of agency policy which should have been adopted as rules pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties United is a foreign insurer, domiciled in the State of Wisconsin holding a certificate of authority from the Department to transact the business of insurance in this state. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Medical Securities Group, Inc. The Department, through its agency head, the Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner, has regulatory jurisdiction over United in connection with certain matters set forth in the Complaint. The regulatory scheme for out-of-state health insurance companies Health insurance companies operating pursuant to in-state regulatory schemes are subject to oversight regulation of the corporate entity including financial solvency and market conduct. Rates are required to be filed and approved prior to being used in the state. The review process involves a review of the rates to determine if they are reasonable in relation to the benefits provided. In regard to this, the Department has rules which it has adopted pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, which it uses to determine the standards and formulae for making that determination. Certain out-of-state health insurers, such as United, are not subject to such stringent regulation. No review of premium rates is conducted by the Department in the case of these insurers, but it would be incorrect to state that they are not subject to regulation by the Department at all. Approximately 40 percent of the health insurance market in Florida is written through out-of-state group arrangements that do not provide policyholders consumer protections afforded to policyholders holding in-state policies regulated by the Department. United is required by Florida law to provide certain types of coverage. United must also ensure that certificates of coverage provided to residents of Florida contain the following language: The benefits of the policy providing your coverage are governed primarily by the law of a state other than Florida. Indent Background At all times pertinent, American Medical Security, Inc. (AMS), was a Florida-licensed administrator authorized to market and administer United's out-of-state group health insurance plans in Florida. AMS, like United, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Medical Securities Group, Inc. In May 1993, United, through AMS, filed for approval with the Department pursuant to Section 627.5515(2), Florida Statutes (1993), as an out-of-state group health insurer who would provide policies to be offered through an Alabama entity called the Prescription For Good Health Trust, which was formed primarily for the purpose of providing group insurance. The Department approved this filing. On March 2, 1995, the Department participated by conference call in a Regulatory Task Force of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The mission of the task force was to attempt to address a number of problems facing the insurance market. One of the problems discussed was rate protection for consumers when faced with "tier rating" or "tier blocking." The two terms are synonymous and mean, as to group health insurance, reclassifying insureds subsequent to having been initially placed in a class. This practice will be discussed in more detail below. In 1996, United made a filing for the Prescription For Good Health Trust which proposed tier rating. Sometime during 1996, after the Department objected to the filing, United withdrew it. The Department had never seen such a filing previously. United is the only health insurer to assert before the Department that reclassification by movement between classes would be permissible under the Florida Insurance Code. Section 627.6515(1), Florida Statutes, provides that a group health insurance policy issued or delivered outside this state under which a resident of Florida is provided coverage, shall comply with the provisions of Part VII, of Chapter 627, Florida Statutes, in the same manner as health policies issued within the state. Part VII of Chapter 627, Florida Statutes, provides for a comprehensive regulatory scheme for group health insurance. Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, however, sets forth a number of exemptions. Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, provides an exemption for an insurer like United, which provides health insurance through an association formed for a purpose other than that of offering insurance, which provides the language referred to in paragraph 5, supra, on the face of the certificate, and which offers the bundle of coverages provided in Subsection (c). This exemption applied to the Prescription For Good Health Trust. The Department concedes that it has no authority to set premium rates for out-of-state insurers like United. In November 1996, United through AMS, filed with the Department, pursuant to Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, a request for approval of an out-of-state group health insurance policy termed the "MedOne Choice" plan. This plan was to be offered through an Ohio association called the Taxpayers' Network, Inc. (TNI). The association was formed primarily for purposes other than providing insurance. In January, 1997, the filing was accepted by the Department as meeting the requirements of Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes. Chapter 96-223, Laws of Florida, created Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, effective May 25, 1996. When created, the section only addressed the renewability of individual coverage. Chapter 97-179, Laws of Florida, substantially amended Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, effective May 30, 1997. Subsequent to the amendment, the section addressed certificates of coverage offered to individuals in the state as part of a group policy. This statute, along with Sections 627.6571 and 627.6487, Florida Statutes, implemented the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The basic theory of the HIPAA legislation is that an insurance company cannot simply cancel a health insurance policy without providing other options. On or about September 25, 1998, United, through AMS, notified all Prescription For Good Health Trust certificate holders that the policy forms through which their coverage had been provided were being discontinued, effective as of each certificate holder's 1999 renewal date. Upon discontinuance of the Prescription For Good Health Trust Plans, the only United health insurance plans available in Florida were the MedOne Choice plans offered through TNI. Membership in TNI was available to anyone upon submitting an application form and paying the membership fee. Membership in TNI was a prerequisite to continuance of a persons' health insurance coverage under United's MedOne Choice plan. United guaranteed each certificate holder, upon joining TNI, that upon request, they would be issued coverage under the Classic Benefit Plan (one of the TNI MedOne Choice plans) without regard to their health status. However, there was no guarantee that premiums would not rise. Certificate holders were also advised that if they desired coverage under a MedOne Choice plan other than the guaranteed issue Classic Benefit plan, they could apply for any of the other TNI plans. Only if the applicant met the underwriting guidelines for the plan for which they applied, would they be issued coverage under another MedOne Choice plan. Between October 1998 and early January 1999, United responded to questions and concerns raised by the Department about the decision to discontinue the Prescription For Good Health Trust plan, and whether the plan of discontinuance was in compliance with Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes. Specifically, discussions were had concerning the movement of insureds from the class in which they were originally assigned to another class at the time of renewal. United entered an agreement with the Department on January 14, 1999, whereby United would offer to certificate holders an additional guaranteed issue TNI plan and would cap the rate for the guaranteed issue plans at no more than twice the premium then currently being paid for the discontinued Prescription For Good Health Trust plan. In accordance with this agreement, United notified certificate holders of the additional guaranteed issue option available to them. Later in 1999, United discontinued the trust plan in accordance with their agreement with the Department. During the process of discontinuance, no certificate holder requested conversion coverage under Section 627.6675, Florida Statutes. Section 627.6675, Florida Statutes, provides that an insured may assert his or her right to a "converted policy," which provides for certain health insurance continuation rights. The Department determined that United's rate for the conversion policy, pursuant to the agreement, was within 200 percent of the standard risk rate and that the notice of the conversion privilege was contained in the certificate of coverage issued to Florida residents. Thus, the Department concluded that United was in compliance with the agreement of January 14, 1999. On May 19, 1999, a Department letter informed a consumer that the discontinuance of her coverage by United did not mean she was being discriminated against because the policy had been terminated for all members. The letter further recited that the Department did not have the ability to regulate United because it was not domiciled in Florida and her insurance was being provided to a group, referring to TNI, that was not registered in Florida. On July 27, 1999, a Department letter informed a consumer that United had an obligation to offer a replacement policy but that United had the right to underwrite the policy and charge additional premium. This statement also referred to TNI. Section 627.6425(1), Florida Statutes, provides that "except as otherwise provided in this section, an insurer that provides individual health insurance coverage to an individual shall renew or continue in force such coverage at the option of the individual." For the purpose of the aforementioned Section, the term "individual health insurance" means health insurance coverage, as described in Section 627.6561(5)(a)2, Florida Statutes, offered to an individual in the state, "including certificates of coverage offered to individuals in the state as part of a group policy issued to an association outside this state. " As noted earlier, Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, is one of the statutes enacted in Florida which implemented HIPAA. HIPAA provides for continuation of health insurance of an insureds health policy but does not limit the premiums which an insurer can charge for coverage. Although Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, does not have the words "guaranteed renewable" contained within the statute, the gist of the statute is that if a person has a health policy, the person has the right to continued coverage. The Department contends that the statute also means that there can be no reclassification or movement between classes at the time of renewal. On March 30, 2000, the Department notified United that it believed the discontinuance of Prescription For Good Health Trust plan, in accordance with the January 1999 agreement, may have violated Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes. A Department publication dated January 4, 2001, entitled, "The Florida Health Insurance Market, Issues and Possible Market Reform Measures," noted that there are "an increasing number of carriers attempting to establish HIPAA eligible individuals as a separate rating class with premium charges ranging from 300 to 500 percent of standard rates. While the Department has found such a rating practice to be in violation of the Florida Insurance Code, many carriers have continued to protest this interpretation. Carriers contend the surcharge practice is both actuarially sound and interpreted as a HIPAA permissible practice by other states." In the 2001 legislative session, the Department sought additional regulatory authority concerning out-of-state group insurers, such as United, along with numerous other changes to the Florida Insurance Code which are unrelated to the issues addressed in this Order. The Florida Legislature failed to approve the requested legislation. Tier rating When a group health policy is underwritten, the members of the group may be divided into classes. The classes are based on risk, which is a function of the probability of claims and the cost of claims. Classes may be denominated, for example, as preferred, manual, and substandard. Very healthy persons are put in the preferred class and pay lower premiums relative to other classes. Average persons are put in the manual class because the likelihood and cost of claims may be average. Persons who for actuarial reasons are determined to have an above-average likelihood of claims and whose claims are apt to be costly, are placed in the substandard class. It, perhaps, goes without saying that the individuals in the substandard class must pay higher premiums for the same coverage as others in the group. If the group health policy is guaranteed renewable, certificate holders may continue their coverage. However, premiums within a class can be increased. It is general industry practice to increase the premiums by class when the time for renewal occurs, if the loss experience is such that there is a requirement to increase premiums. As earlier noted, the Department asserts that only by raising premiums for an entire class may premiums be raised. The Department insists that this requirement is part of the definition of "guaranteed renewable." It became United's practice to move insureds between classes. Therefore, for instance, if a person in the group who had been a member of the preferred class experienced the need for costly medical services, then that person might be moved to the manual or substandard class. This would inevitably result in that person paying an increased premium. On the other hand, a person in the substandard class, who was subsequently determined to be a good risk, might be moved to the preferred or manual class and experience reduced premiums as a result. When a substandard class becomes populated with persons who cause the payment of costly claims, premiums increase within that class. Premiums may increase to the point where persons egress the plan, which leaves the class with fewer and sicker members. Eventually, under such a plan, there will be no members, because the premiums will inflate to the point that the benefits, in relation to the amount of the premium, will render the plan uneconomical. This sequence of events is often referred to as the health insurance "death spiral." One of the asserted evils which the Department seeks to combat in the Complaint is the "death spiral." HIPAA eligibles In 1996, when HIPAA became law and Florida enacted laws to implement it, a practice sometimes referred to as "rating up" occurred among some carriers in the industry. As noted earlier, HIPAA and the state statutes implementing it, guarantee that an individual, who through no fault of his own, loses his or her group health insurance coverage has the opportunity to obtain substitute health insurance. A person in this category is referred to as HIPAA eligible. Companies providing insurance under these laws are cognizant of the fact that persons in good health generally decline to purchase this type of insurance but that persons who are in bad health, and who will, therefore, likely have costly claims, will purchase it if they can afford it. This results in a desire on the part of insurers, to charge higher premiums for HIPAA eligible persons than they might charge persons in a comparable, non-HIPAA plan. It is a permissible underwriting practice to take into consideration age, health, and a myriad of other actuarial considerations when developing premium rates for HIPAA eligibles. If an insurer factors in the knowledge that unhealthy persons are more likely than healthy persons to obtain a policy based on HIPAA and charge higher premiums as a result, then "rating up" occurs. The Department contends in its Complaint that "rating up" is discriminatory and, therefore, forbidden by the Unfair Insurance Trade Practices Act (UITPA), Section 626.951, et seq., Florida Statutes. United allegedly arrives at rates for HIPAA eligibles solely based on the fact that the individuals are HIPAA eligible which if true, would be "rating up." Immediately prior to April 30, 1998, the Department received a memorandum from the federal Health Care Financing Administration addressing three general problems with insurance practices regarding HIPAA eligibles. One of the three problems addressed in the memorandum was the practice of "rating up." In response, the Department issued Informational Memorandum 98-103M on April 30, 1998, addressing the three problems. The Department announced that it had concerns similar to that of the Health Care Financing Administration, and would address them in administrative rules implementing HIPAA and Chapter 97-179, Laws of Florida. However, no rules addressing these concerns have been adopted. Insurance carriers disagree with the Department as to whether "rating up" is unfairly discriminatory and therefore a violation of the UITPA. The Department is addressing these differences on a case-by-case basis in the course of market conduct examinations. The evidence adduced at the hearing did not elucidate exactly what "addressing these differences on a case-by-case basis in the course of market conduct examinations" means. Count Three in the Complaint represents the first time an administrative action has been brought against an insurer addressing this practice. The definition of guaranteed renewable Chapter 4-149, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled "Filing of Forms and Rates for Life and Health Insurance." Rule 4-149.006(4)(o)3, Florida Administrative Code, provides for a definition of "guaranteed renewable." However, Chapter 4-149, Florida Administrative Code, does not address out-of-state group health insurers, such as United, because the Department has no authority to require the filing of forms and rates in the case of out-of-state health insurers like United. A life and health insurance treatise written by Black and Skipper states that the definitions of the categories of renewable health insurance policies are not uniform among the states. It is the Department's position that Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, applies to out-of-state trusts, such as United's Prescription For Good Health Trust, even though the word "trust" is not used in the statute. It is apparent that if there is no limit on the amount of premium a health insurer can charge at the time of renewal, a guarantee of renewal can be meaningless. This fact is ameliorated by rate-setting in the case of highly regulated health insurers such as domestic insurers. In the context of this case, it is not the renewability of a policy that is the gist of the problem. Rather, it is whether rates can be increased on persons through the movement of insureds from one class to another. The allegations of the Complaint In order to determine which statements are alleged to be unadopted rules, it is necessary to refer to Counts Two through Seven of the Complaint. These counts will be summarized, in seriatim. Count Two alleges that persons who continued their participation in TNI were unlawfully and unfairly discriminated against because some members were reclassified based on their health status present at that time (1999), rather than being retained in the class in which they resided when the policy was initially issued. The Petition alleges, inter alia, that this practice violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, which is a section in the UITPA. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Three alleges that all of those individuals formerly covered through the Prescription For Good Health Trust who were at the time of their discontinuance HIPAA eligible, were, arbitrarily and without regard to health status, assigned a premium rate of either three or five times the base rate for TNI as a whole. Count Three alleges that this assignment unfairly discriminated against the HIPAA eligible individuals who were of the same actuarially supportable class and essentially the same hazard. Count Three further alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Four alleges that the enactment of Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, in 1996, as amended in 1997, statutorily determined that the Prescription For Good Health Trust plan was "guaranteed renewable" as that term is used and understood in the insurance industry. It further alleged that the term "guaranteed renewable” means that once an insurer classifies an individual as a member of an actuarially supportable class for rate and premium applicable to the specified coverage, that individual may not thereafter be charged a premium which is different from any other member of the same class and cannot be moved to another class. The complaint states that United unlawfully moved insureds from one class to another. Count Four additionally alleged that when United discontinued the Prescription For Good Health Trust, the prerequisite for individuals to obtain renewed health insurance coverage was reclassification of some of those individuals to different actuarially supportable classes based on their health status then pertinent to those individuals. It was further alleged that higher premiums were charged to approximately 70 percent of those who renewed or continued, and that premium increases of 200 percent to 300 percent were experienced. Count Four asserted that Section 627.6425(3), Florida Statutes, prohibits such reclassification. Count Four also alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because such reclassification was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Five alleges that on the one year anniversary of renewal with TNI, United unlawfully reclassified additional individuals which resulted in a premium increases of up to 60 percent. Count Five alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because this action was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Six alleges that within the tier blocks described in Count Two, United unlawfully established numerous sub- classifications based on health related factors pertinent to each individual within that class. It is alleged in the Complaint that these sub-classifications resulted in individuals within the same class being charged a different premium than are other members of the class. Count Six alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because this action was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Seven alleges that United used a point debit system where an arithmetic number of points are assigned to a corresponding health hazard. The higher the cumulative debit score, the higher the premium. United will decline to insure at all if the cumulative debit score gets sufficiently high. Count Seven alleges that the assignment of points with no criteria for decision-making results in arbitrary and discriminatory point scores. Count Seven alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. In summary, the three statements alleged to be rules are: Practicing tier rating is discriminatory and violates the UITPA. Placing HIPAA-eligible individuals in a premium classification solely on the basis of their HIPAA eligible status is discriminatory and violates the UITPA. The term "guaranteed renewable" prohibits the classification of individuals in a health insurance group at a time other than at the inception of coverage.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's claim against her state group health insurance company for services related to a Magnetic Resonance Imaging examination (MRI) should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was employed by the State of Florida and was a participant in the State of Florida group health insurance plan, which is a self-insured plan administered by the State of Florida in conjunction with the plan's third party administrator, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida (BCBSF). This plan is frequently referred to as the PPO Plan, an acronym for preferred provider organization. Prior to April 26, 2002, Petitioner's physician detected a lump in Petitioner's right breast. Petitioner's physician ordered mammography and ultrasound examinations to be performed on Petitioner's right breast. Those examinations were performed on April 1, 2002. Following those tests, Petitioner's physician ordered an MRI examination of the right breast, which was performed on April 26, 2002, and is the procedure at issue in this proceeding. Following that MRI, Petitioner had another mammography and ultrasound for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. Respondent has paid Petitioner's claims for coverage of the mammography and ultrasound examinations. Respondent has denied payment for the professional fee associated with the MRI in the amount of $215.00. Respondent has paid the facility fee associated with the MRI in the amount of $1,705.00. Respondent asserts that the payment of that fee was in error and intends to seek reimbursement for that payment if it prevails in this proceeding. The terms of coverage of the state group health insurance plan are set forth in a document entitled "State Employees' PPO Plan Group Health Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefit Document" (Benefit Document). The Benefit Document (at page 31, paragraph 47 of the section entitled "Services Not Covered By The Plan") specifically excludes the following from coverage: 47. Services and procedures considered by BCBSF to be experimental or investigational, or services and procedures not in accordance with generally accepted professional medical standards, including complications resulting from these non-covered services. The Benefit Document has a section entitled "Definitions of Selected Terms Used By The Plan" beginning at page 49. The definition of the phrase "experimental or investigational services", found at page 51, includes, in pertinent part, the following: . . . any evaluation, treatment, therapy, or device that: * * * is generally regarded by experts as requiring more study to determine maximum dosage, toxicity, safety or efficacy, or to determine the efficacy compared to standard treatment for the condition has not been proven safe and effective for treatment of the condition based on the most recently published medical literature of the U.S., Canada or Great Britain using generally accepted scientific, medical or public health methodologies or statistical practices is not accepted in consensus by practicing doctors as safe and effective for the condition is not regularly used by practicing doctors to treat patients with the same or a similar condition The Benefit Document provides at page 51 that BCBSF and the Division of State Group Insurance determine whether a service is experimental or investigational. The testimony of Dr. Wood established that an MRI of the breast is experimental or investigational within the meaning of the Benefit Document. 2/ MRI examinations of the breast are not reliable diagnostic tools because such examinations result in an unacceptable number of cases where an MRI produces false negative findings that reflect the absence of cancer where cancer is, in fact, present in the breast. According to Dr. Wood, an MRI cannot be relied upon and should not be used to avoid a biopsy of a suspicious mass because a patient would run an unacceptable risk that the detection of cancer may be delayed or missed. Dr. Wood also testified that radiologists in Florida performing services for the state group insurance health plan have been informed of BCBSF's position. Petitioner's doctors did not inform her prior to the examination that the MRI examination would not be covered by her insurance plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying coverage for the MRI claims submitted by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an employee of the State of Florida, and was at all times pertinent, a member of the State Group Health Insurance Program administered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. In March of 1984, Petitioner was hospitalized due to severe indigestion and abdominal pain. Petitioner was discharged from the hospital and informed by his physician that if his condition worsened, surgery would be necessary. Petitioner's condition worsened and on May 28, 1984, his physician, R. Klein Bowen, M.D., admitted him to the hospital with a pre-operative diagnosis of chronic acalculus cholecystitis which is chronic inflammation of the gallbladder. On May 29, 1984, said physician operated upon petitioner and his operative report listed the following under the title "Operation": Cholescystectomy. Attempted operative cholangiogram. Incidental appendectomy. The description of the operative procedure stated in the operative report (Respondent's Exhibit 1) establishes that the appendectomy which was performed was accomplished through the same incision which was made for performing the cholescystectomy (gallbladder removal). The operative report stated that the appendix was not acutely inflamed. Subsequent to the operative procedures the Petitioner filed a claim with the State Group Health Insurance Plan administrator, seeking payment for the following charges: May 28, 1984, $90.00 for consultation and case history preparation prior to surgery; May 29, 1984, $1,350.00 Cholescystectomy; May 29, 1984, $375.00 Appendectomy. All of said services were performed by R. Klein Bowen, M.D. The State Group Health Self-Insurance Plan paid the charge for the cholescystectomy and denied the claims for consultation and case history preparation prior to the surgery and for the appendectomy. The State Self- Insurance Plan justified its denial of Petitioner's claim for the above benefits based upon limitations it alleged were contained in the State of Florida Employees' Group Health Self-Insurance Plan Benefit Document (Respondent's Exhibit 2). Section VIII entitled "Limitations" in paragraph I. specifies that payment may be made for in-patient medical care physician visits in addition to payment for surgery only when the condition which required medical care is not related to the surgery and does not constitute a part of the pre-operative or post-operative care. Additionally, Section VIII, F. specifies that no additional payment shall be made for a surgical procedure which is an incidental procedure performed through the same incision. Petitioner did not dispute the provisions which Respondent alleged were limitations justifying denial of payment, although he asserted that the provisions contained within the Group Health Self-Insurance Plan Benefit Document were not cost effective and would result in additional expenses and lost time from work and were worthy of reconsideration. However, Petitioner did not present any competent evidence to support his claim or refute the limitations relied upon by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying the Petition. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 14th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald B. Richardson 2909-198 South Semoran Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32822 Richard L. Kopel, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gilda Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
